china & the west
16 May 2008
Coming up Blue
Burma is an important strategic ally of China. Claims that the West is simply trying to alleviate a "humanitarian disaster" are disingenuous, writes Maryann Keady
If China did not have enough on its hands at the moment, one of its key allies in its naval "string of pearls" strategy - Burma - is now dealing with Western pressure to open up the country to UN relief. Commentators such as Shawn Crispin in the Asia Times are claiming that if ever there were a time for the United States to invade Burma, now is it. Well that is interesting, Shawn.I suppose both you and I know, as we follow the China issue, that opening up Burma to the West would pretty much mark the end of Burma's usefulness to China, and cap off a stellar few months for the West where the "peer competitor" has been routed at every conceivable turn.
Burma is an important strategic ally of China's and claiming that the West is simply trying to alleviate a "humanitarian disaster" is disingenuous and typical of the post-Cold War rhetoric that passes as journalism these days in our media. (See F William Engdahl's excellent article in the Asia Times or my program on Asia 2025 for more on Burma's strategic importance to the West).
The mainstream press will run numerous articles about hundreds of thousands dead; governments will wax lyrical about their desire to assist in this time of terrible tragedy; but best of all, there will be the claims that it's the "regime" that needs to allow the humanitarian effort to "proceed". That the numbers of dead will be greatly revised years after the tragedy, and events around the incident disputed (as in Racak, Kosovo) will be presented as historical quibbling.
For those of you who don't know, relief efforts have long been used as a feel good way for Western missions to get into areas that otherwise might be a bit strategically sensitive.
We are supposed to be at in the midst of a War on Terror but geopolitically and strategically, the post-9/11 war has actually been on China. I suggest you ask your Member of Parliament exactly where Osama Bin Laden is at the moment. (Clearly on holiday, perhaps in Dubai where oil prices are allowing a tidy profit for the "league of democracies".)
Where he isn't, is in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'s HQ in Beijing, where the mood must be a little serious these days. Why? Well let's look at the last few months, and what the Chinese have had to deal with.
First of all, the uprising in Tibet has spoiled the Olympic party, with human rights activists demonstrating across the globe and interrupting the ceremonial torch events that were a chance to show the world that China had arrived on the World Stage. That Tibet is strategically important and the scene of geo-political argy-bargy throughout history adds to the tense stand off - as does the fact that the Dalai Lama received a US Congressional Gold Medal last year. Reports that the US may have been involved in the Tibet unrest has only fuelled Chinese paranoia that Western powers are "At the Gates". The fear is that other provinces such as Xinjiang will also attempt some sort of separatist action, or at least be the site of unrest.
Second, they have had to deal with an Asian region that is shoring up alliances to "contain" China's growing power. Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, Australia - these are a few of the Asian nations making sure that Uncle Sam stays in the Pacific as a warning to the growing power. The US of course assists them in purchasing very expensive military equipment, fuelling an Asian arms race which the mainstream press insists on calling a "necessary precaution" despite the fact that the weight is clearly stacked in the US's favour. A Japan-US alliance that now co-operates on Missile Defence is a nightmare scenario for Beijing, especially as this increases the chance that in the case of a Cross Straits confrontation over Taiwan, Japan and the US will come to Taiwan's aid.
Third, China is dealing with astronomical oil prices, a factor that slows economic growth. Energy supply is crucial for further Chinese growth, yet the CCP is dealing with the uncertainty of energy supplies and instability in the Middle East. The current flux in global security due to a myriad of internal wars means that Chinese decision-makers cannot be certain as to supply security. This is not a good position to be in especially if a "concert of democracies" decides that they will increase naval co-operation and ultimately have the power to block sea-lanes if they so desire. This would be very, very bad for the "peer competitor", and have a serious impact on China's economic growth.
Fourth, we have the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and an earthquake in Sichuan a region that is a key transport corridor for transporting coal from Central China. Coal of course, is the fuel of choice in China, as it is a cheap and more readily available than other fuels. Seventy per cent of China's energy is derived from coal, so any upset to coal transport in vital areas affects the economy. The region is also home to Chinese nuclear and plutonium processing plants adding a serious security element to the disaster. China has sent 100,000 soliders to the area, with the New York Times calling it "one of the largest peacetime mobilisations by any country in recent memory".
There is also a fear that crucial dams may have suffered serious structural damage, affecting not just water supply but also China's hydro-electric power projects. Reservoirs around the Three Gorges Dam are considered to be in a fragile state after the earthquake, and the possibility of any potential disaster scenarios involving the huge Dam would have Beijing's leaders breaking out in an icy sweat over dinner. With the flooding in Burma wiping out rice producing regions, China must also step in and export rice to the area, as world rice prices drastically increase. The Sichuan earthquake only increases fears of a natural disaster severely affecting energy supplies thus economic and military production.
Fifth, North Korea, which has been supported by China and is important to China's security (it is on China's southern eastern border), has decided that it is going to allow the US to distribute "food aid" in the country with monitors being given unprecedented access to oversee its distribution. The food is going to be distributed via the UN World Food Program and "US non-governmental organisations" which have done an excellent job in the past in shoring up Washington's foreign policy objectives. Thomas Casey, a State Department spokesperson said "There is no connection with any other issue". Really, Thomas? Now why would you have to say that? It's enough to make me hire Team America for a little sentimental viewing.
Oh, and lastly, there is the Olympics, an event that will see thousands of athletes descend on the capital Beijing, save a terrorist strike, a political boycott a la French President Nicolas Sarkozy or natural disaster. As most of those scenarios have already played themselves out in the lead up the games, the CCP can only guess what is around the corner.
The real issue, of course, is whether the leadership can keep it together as internal and external issues weigh heavily on the political structure. A strategic misstep is all China's adversaries need for the region to be embroiled in conflict or worse, be witness to China's messy break-up.
Humanitarian aid for Burma masks serious geopolitical strategy by major powers, and any attempt to depict otherwise is plain historical distortion. What we can be sure of is that there is serious pressure on Beijing - and how Chinese leaders respond to this pressure will determine China's place in the world power stakes of the 21st Century.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
North Korea on China’s south eastern border? Location, location.
My mistake, it should read southern eastern border
cheers
marni
OK Maryann – “Humanitarian aid for Burma masks serious geopolitical strategy by major powers, and any attempt to depict otherwise is plain historical distortion.” But hasn’t Burma suffered a major natural catastrophe? And aren’t many, many thousands of Burmese in desperate need of aid? And how well do you say the Burmese generals are performing in helping out their own people? Blocking the geopolitical machinations of the US & other Western powers is a good thing. But you don’t say anything about what needs to be done now to help the victims of this disaster. Or don’t you want to comment on that?
Thesis may be right, but not demonstrated here.
I would say that N Korea, on my map at least, is on something like a North Eastern border.
Other than that, I would have to agree on just about every point from Maryann Keady.
Doug Drum, I think it must be getting fairly plain that other than a few people such as possibly but not necessarily Tim Costello (he has been blocked so far), getting access to Burma’s Irrawaddy Delta is just not going to happen, unless it is a few journalists walking in and playing hide and seek with what is evident of the Burmese Military.
Which is not a lot, it seems, they are more evident at road blocks, making sure that as much as possible, no one gets in except a few Burmese. This whole thing is going to be swept under the carpet, and the West will accept it. Deny deny deny!
Most if not all of the Aid getting in to the Airport is being confiscated by the Burmese Military for their own use, and some old rotted rice and other food is being distributed close to Rangoon by the Generals.
The Chinese are showing the Generals in Burma the Way in Sichuan, but it would seem they are going to ignore this as well. Some are thinking that these people are human, but in reality they are not. They are monsters, totally out of touch with normal humanity.
We may have almost forgotten about it, but Mugabe in Zimbabwe is going to get away with more murder also, because no one is going to be able to force the African leaders to lead, and no one else is going to step in, Zimbabwe just does not have the Oil or whatever necessary.
The UN is totally toothless. It has been used as a US puppet, but with China and india and Russia blocking every attempt to ‘interfere’ in Nation State matters, in the Security Council, they will do nothing except make a lot of loud but futile noise.
ASEAN is also a bloody useless organisation. Again, this damned ‘non-interference’ clause, which Australia has also signed.
The US is not going to invade Burma, that would immediately bring on WW 3. Surely even the brainless Bush understands that. The resultant Nuclear cloud would wipe out Asia (and Australia) for thousands of years.
So let us just accept it. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people are going to die or come very close to it in Burma, and the rest of the world is going to sit back, yowl to the skies for a while, then go back to making money, which is what they mostly want to do.
Unless China changes it’s mind and ‘interferes’.
Dazza.
Sorry, but it seems to me that North Korea, up near Vladivostok, is clearly at the northern rather than the southern half of China’s eastern border. Hong Kong, Vietnam are in the south. :-)
This article is a shameful defence of an indefensible regime. To claim that the rejection of aid is justified in terms of protecting national sovereignty in the face of an imperialist West and especially the US is positively Stalinist in its xenophobia and paranoia.
For this author it is not enough that she smear every Western democratic government she also feels to obliged to paint aid agencies as the pawns of imperialists. She then mimics the Burmese regime’s downplaying of the extent of the disaster and says, more or less, that the Western press are liars who exaggerate to suit their imperial masters.
All of this reeks of remnant Trotskyist propaganda (and yes Trotsky was something of a Stalinist himself) of the Socialist Workers Party (or whatever they call themselves these days in their endless transmutations to try to make themselves acceptabe) variety.
Invasion is, of course, unacceptable (it was a straw man from the beginning) but pressure on the Burmese regime to maximise the aid effort should continue and we should ignore fanciful nonsense that we are thereby behaving as imperialist pawns and contributing to the encirclement of China.
I’m with Doug Drum and Australiana on this. Perhaps unintentionally, Maryann has written little more than contemptible apologetics for a couple of brutal regimes and her vile suggestion that aid is a western imperialist plot and that ‘any attempt to depict otherwise is plain historical distortion’ ignores the obvious (to most people with any heart) possibility that
a) a particular offer of aid may be part of an imperialist plot; or
b) a particular offer of aid may be an honest offer of aid.
The reality is that the Burmese people need aid and they are not getting it through their fascist, ultimately RIGHT-WING government. Apologise all you like for those pampered bags of shit but your slanders against genuine aid agencies are repulsive and reprehensible.
And Dazza, you should have more bloody sense. Get your priorities right.
Joe Lane
Joe, as usual , you have lost the plot! Totally and completely! This has nothing whatsoever to do with any of MY priorities.
As I have said before, experience has shown that Aid Agencies connected to the USA are more than often fronts (knowing or not) for the CIA. The CIA has found that using the Aid Agencies has been a masterstroke in order to gain information on places they are barred completely from. Not nice, not cricket, but the US CIA has NEVER been a cricket player. A dirtier organisation would be hard to find, even in Putin’s Russia. The world has woken up to what the Yanks do as a matter of policy, and it is no good trying to deny it. Burma’s Generals are already paranoid about anything associated with the USA and it’s fellow travellers, such as Britain and Australia. Even the French have been denied access, not surprising really when you consider their Colonial days in that area.
Of course most aid offers from Non-Governmental organisations are rigi-dig, but try telling that to a Burmese General!
Sure the Burmese people need aid, and lots of it, they need a total change of Government, but because of world politics and that non-intervention clause in the Russian, Indian, Chinese and ASEAN countries, and the Generals determined that no Westerner of any kind is going to be able to get in there and show the world the truth, I do not see the way clear for any of the aid provided to ever get to them, certainly not in time to save them from death.
And if someone starts a war, especially at this time of year with the monsoons and cyclones, for a start they would have to be idiots, but they would surely have to know that by doing so, they are dooming a lot more people to death and disfigurement.
Invasion is NOT the answer. Direct and indirect pressure on the Junta Generals is possibly the only way ahead.
It has been noted, quietly, that down from the top Generals, not all the Burmese Army are happy in any way about what is happening to their own people, probably some of their own families. All the top Generals have their families with them in their hideaway. Others do not! There may be some chance eventually that the lower orders are going to revolt, exterminate the Generals, and replace them, with hopefully more human people.
Dazza.
If the Burmese junta avoids mutiny and achieves these goals, it will be thanks largely to China, which has vigorously blocked all attempts at the United Nations for humanitarian intervention in Burma. Inside China, where the central government is going to great lengths to show itself as compassionate, news of this complicity could prove explosive. Will China’s citizens receive this news? They just might. Beijing has, up to now, displayed an awesome determination to censor and monitor all forms of communication. But in the wake of the quake, the notorious "Great Firewall" censoring the Internet is failing badly. Blogs are going wild, and even state reporters are insisting on reporting the news.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080602/klein
I think the article sums the situation up well, and Dazza, I’m with you about pressuring the generals. (Pressure, I dare to suggest, that includes the Western-backed government suppliers of arms to the junta. Or is that just free trade?) It’ll take time, but if anyone believes invasion would be better they need to open their eyes. Right now, no-strings aid is what’s needed. Of course, the US could - and probably will - continue to offer aid under conditions they know will be refused, which doesn’t help anyone.
Australiana, there’s nothing Stalinist about calling a terrain redistribution implement a spade - NGOs, whether knowing or not, are often trojan horses for intelligence operations in line with foreign policy objectives, and some are already operating in Burma. Governments know that. Remember the hooha and derision when Saddam Hussein claimed the UN inspectors were spying? Years later, of course, the truth came out.
More broadly, though, while China has definitely suffered a few setbacks recently, they’re most likely blips on the relative trajectories of it and the US. Let’s face it, the US is losing soft power daily. It has by far the most powerful military in the world, but needs China to finance its wars. If China stops, it means a winding-down of US violence - hopefully not prefaced with one final fling. China will deal with governments of all stripes, on the basis of mutual benefit - if Burma was a democracy, they’d deal with it too. But they won’t tolerate a beach-head for US interests, which is all the US is interested in creating. And so the Burmese continue to die.
Phil Annetta
http://philannetta.blogspot.com
Yes indeed, Dazza, the US is an evil empire - but there are still such creatures in the world as genuine humanitarian bodies -let’s not get too paranoid and tar all offers of aid with the same brush merely because the Yanks are such bastards. Sometimes yes, humanitarian agencies are fronts for the CIA, but sometimes they are not. How to tell the difference is what is crucial, a matter of life or death, especially in this case for the Burmese people. And thank Christ there are more aid agencies than just the bloody Yanks.
To pressure the Burmese generals, the world will have to pressure the Chinese. As Niccolo points out, they may be very exposed at the moment in their double standards and fake concern for the Chinese and Tibetan people. But they are so desperate to make a good impression with the Games that they may even see it as being their ultimate interests to pressure the Burmese - even to allowing some aid to flow through from China itself. I think the Chinese authorities are so callous, so concerned with nothing but their own interests that, as Philannetta says, they might even do the right thing if it suits them.
But can we please get over the myth that the US is the be-all and end-all ?
Joe
What evidence is there that China is not providing Burma with a lot of aid in this crisis? If the humanitarian impulse is supposed to be the sole motive for offering aid, are we saying that only the West is pure in this respect? If so, the Chinese might rightly feel that we would only impugn their motives if they advertised their assistance.
Poor China. They give so much and ask so little in return.
My point is, BPobjie, how do we know that the Burmese are not getting aid? Are we simply assuming this because "we" are not supplying it? This may be a reasonable assumption. But is there evidence? There does not seem to be much information getting out of Burma, and perhaps we have to assume the worst. But I am just saying there could be a different explanation. Does anyone know what is actually happening?
Rowena,
Satellites and surveillance equipment could easily detect planes flying in and out of Burma, and convoys of trucks coming on overland. Are there any from China ? Doesn’t sound like it. Do you think aid organisations would not find out about any massive movement of materials out of storage areas in southern China if it was happening ? To follow through with your argument, are there any convoys of trucks of fleets of planes bringing in aid from India ? If there were, they would soon be noticed. So maybe we have to assume that these forms of aid are not happening.
And given the scale of the disaster in China (end of Act 1: the Earthquake, wait for Act 2: the Dams), they may be too preoccupied with their own problems to think about the Burmese. That’s called a ‘colonial’ attitude.
Joe
I have now done some research. It appears that the Red Cross, MSF and UNICEF and some others all have substantial numbers of local (and already established) workers and volunteers on the ground. The Red Cross states that it currently has 27,000 workers and volunteers across many but not all areas. But all these organisations are crying out that much more assistance is needed in the wake of this massive disaster.
www.redcross.org.au/ourservices_aroundtheworld_emergencyrelief_MyanmarCy…
www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?objectid=F15F1F34-15C5-F00A-259D…
www.unicef.org/media/media_43955.html
The military junta seems at present to be allowing in shipments of supplies, but still has a problem admitting foreign workers to organise and distribute this aid. Martin Jacques in the Guardian writes on 15/05/08:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_jacques/2008/05/his_masters_v…
"The military junta’s hostility towards the west is well-known and deeply-rooted. It is hardly surprising - if wrong-headed - that it does not want to allow western personnel into the country, given the fact that the west has boycotted the regime for decades (though those western aid organisations like Save the Children and the Red Cross that have been operating in the country for many years continue to work on the ground and be accepted).
If the west finds itself denied - and genuinely wants to do more - then why doesn’t it seek a working relationship with those countries that do have an amicable relationship with Myanmar - namely, China, India and the other nine member-states of Asean (Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines and Brunei), all of whom have a much greater stake in Myanmar’s fortunes than the distant west. They also happen to be far more familiar with the country and knowledgeable about its needs.
In fact, these countries have been very active since the cyclone struck. China - not normally a major aid donor - offered $1 million of aid in the immediate aftermath, compared with an initial American offer of $250,000, and China has upped this more than fivefold since. The Thai prime minister visited Yangon (Rangoon) for discussions with the junta this week. A special Asean mission is presently in the capital discussing what further might be done. There will be an emergency meeting of Asean foreign ministers in Singapore on Monday, including the foreign minister from Myanmar, to draw up further plans for aid and financial assistance.
Instead of railing from the sidelines - and dark mutterings about military action, which is bound to have an entirely counter-productive effect on Myanmar and its neighbours - if the west is serious, it should organise its relief effort with and, if necessary, through these countries. All else is posturing."
This suggestion seems more sensible to me than all the moralistic, hostile rhetoric which, no matter how justified, is hardly likely to have the desired effect. The US should be diplomatic, even eat a bit of humble pie, especially as they are living in a glass house (Hurricane Katrina). But it’s a long time since the self-righteous and belligerent US won many hearts and minds.
How come everything turns out to be about the f*ing US ? People, Burma is the subject of this tragedy, the US is a bit player. Christ, sometimes I’d swear we’re playing ‘my daddy’s bigger than your daddy’ and ‘my daddy’s a policeman, he’s going to put you in jail’ over and over again. Can we get it straight - even the Yanks are not stupid enough to play war games with Burma, because they know they would be dragged into an unwinnable war with China and even India. Look how quiet they were over the massacre of the monks last year. They are bastards, yes Dazza, but they pick their fights and this isn’t one of them.
so let’s get back to what can be done for the people, our brothers and sisters [if we are internationalists, christians, Buddhists or Baha’i], in Burma, and now in Sechuan and Tibet. How can aid be speeded up ? Surely there are Chinese warships in the area which can shepherd aid ships to ther ports, to assure the Burmese junta that they are not carrying weapons or will ill-intent ? Surely trucks can be brought in overland from Thailand, each one overseen by fascist Burmese soldiers ? Three million people are homeless, water-borne diseases are about to strike many or most of them, it sounds like food is incredibly scarce, people are dying right now. Lick the arses of the junta if it has to be done, but save the people. Let’s not sacrifice them to make a pissy point.
Joe
I thought the Bush administration despised the UN and denied it funding, yet here we have Burma apparently regarding UN aid (apart from UNICEF) as a trojan horse for the US. I guess the UN is a complex organisation!