16 December 2017

Humanitarian Politics and Myanmar

Beware the so-called humanitarians arguing for war.
Humanitarian politics has become a basis for war in the post Cold War era. This was a growing theme during the 1990's as the US intervened in places like Somalia and NATO began to rapidly expand in Europe. Even the disastrous genocide in Rwanda was spun as a call to arms for future interventions.


The so-called War on Terror changed the dynamic and the focus of the West. The humanitarian cause faded into the background for a season. By the time Obama had been in office for a couple of years there were some that would have (more or less) dispensed with the official War on Terror. The rise of ISIS changed that and yet others would still see it transformed away from the original Neo-Conservative vision as presented under the George W Bush administration. This is the War on Terror 2.0 project I've talked about elsewhere, the one fully backed by the US and the Western political establishment. It retains the original war's features and agenda but is packaged and even fought in a very different way. The fight against terrorism is merged with the case for humanitarian war... what might be described as a new/old paradigm. This vision is sure to bring Europe on board and in not a few cases already has.
Stoltenberg is of course a voice for the imperial establishment and as head of NATO he wants to justify and expand his bureaucracy. NATO is meaningless apart from the United States and Stoltenberg controls no armies but he helps to establish a bridge between the Pentagon and Brussels. Additionally he provides an internationalist veneer for the European community. He's a non-American voice arguing the American position.
What about Angelina Jolie? To be blunt, she is a foolish liberal who is blind to what Western imperialism is all about. She has witnessed suffering in her many travels but she clearly doesn't understand it. Her calls to moral obligation are especially rich as she is little more than a sex symbol who has actually contributed to the demise of morality and the status of women in the West. She has also cashed in very nicely on her work. This is but another classic case of why so many in the public loathe Hollywood liberals who come across as elitist. Why should we listen to her? We shouldn't.
But this tag-team represents a threat.  It's a dangerous argument dressed up in humanitarian garb. Understand it for what it is. Stoltenberg and Jolie are calling on the Western powers to start wars and use violence to enforce a Western Liberal order. They each have their own motives and yet it is Jolie that appears as a bleeding heart fool. Certainly a pseudo-Leftist, she will nevertheless appeal to many like-minded people in the West. Stoltenberg is wicked but from his vantage point such a propaganda project with Hollywood makes perfect sense.
It is along these same lines the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar needs to be addressed. It is indeed a crisis and Burma is guilty of persecuting these people. While culturally connected to Bengal and Assam, they're not mere Bangladeshis as the Burmese would have it.
That said, Yangon is right to worry about minority groups and insurrections. The Karen people and their insurrection, long backed by the CIA are but one example. They fear the same with the Rohingya and in their case they also fear ISIS making inroads. Neighbouring nations like Thailand have had trouble with Islamic groups and Northeast India has been plagued by paramilitaries and guerillas for years. Myanmar doesn't want it and they want the Rohingya to go away. The Rohingya would argue they've been in Rakhine State since the Middle Ages and that many of their woes are the fruit of British imperial policies which came to a head in the wake of the British withdrawal and partition of the subcontinent in the late 1940's.
That said and all politics and history aside, what the Burmese are doing is pretty awful and the world has been shocked to discover Aung San Suu Kyi's real colours. There are debates over the nature and extent of her power vis-à-vis the military. But if you listen to her words over the decades, she's always been an ardent supporter of the Burmese military, even while they persecuted her... itself a somewhat strange episode.
She's not what people thought she was. The real egg-on-the-face belongs to the Nobel committee which continues to discredit itself in its choices for the Peace Prize. If it were not for the media hype and the money it could be questioned as to whether or not the award still carries any prestige. Suu Kyi was a dissident nationalist and nationalists are not peace-loving people. They should have realised that but at the time she made for a great story and her selection was a Western political move against the Burmese junta.
Yangon is caught in the middle, in a tug of war between China and the West. They looked on nervously as Francis paid his recent visit... was it Western intervention? Francis got himself into a bit of a bind and came out of it looking poorly and less than courageous. Many of his advisors didn't want him to go in the first place.  
The West wants Burma in their camp. It's strategically important. Placed betwixt and between India, Thailand and China it holds a potentially important position. While I don't for a moment doubt the Rohingya are suffering, the timing of all this is suspicious. It's reached a point of crisis but at the same time it's not exactly a new issue.
And yet the media is ramping up the attention against the traitor-hypocrite Suu Kyi and now there are many voices calling for the international community to do something. It feels like the public is being softened up and prepared for an 'intervention'... in other words a military invasion. It may not go that way and I hope it doesn't and yet it's starting to feel that way. We've seen this movie before.
So have Stoltenberg and Jolie.
In addition to the Balkans in the 1990's one also thinks of the heavy propaganda campaign in 2000-2001 regarding Taliban rule in Afghanistan. The women in burqas had to be rescued. Of course the burqa was already a norm in much of Afghan society long before the Taliban. At one point in time such religious expressions were frowned upon in the modernising cities... especially under the egalitarian education system of Kabul's pro-Soviet regime. And yet the people in the countryside never abandoned traditional practice. The difference with the Taliban was that they enforced such rules as the burqa, men having beards and the prohibition on music etc.
And yet once the Taliban was gone and indeed they did fade away for a few years... the burqa wearing largely continued. Obviously women in the cities could now dispense with it but it hardly sparked the humanitarian-feminist revolution some Westerners hoped for. I remember the magazines and books coming out at the time. The whole women's rights issue was really being pushed as a supplemental justification for the war and the nation building project. Guess what? It never took off. Even the campaigns of the somewhat obnoxious Malala Yousafzai haven't accomplished much. She can fill speaking venues in the West but her impact in Pakistan and Afghanistan amounts to zero.
The Western public is sold on issues that are dear to them in their context. They don't understand what's happening in other parts of the world or how other people think. Waging war and destroying societies so that women can be free of patriarchal rule is not the answer. If you want to stop women being raped, child marriage and a host of other practices... war is hardly the answer. In fact it's the worst option. Destroying societies will only unleash the most radical and violent elements. This is true in Central Africa and it's true in Asia as well.
That's how the Taliban came to power in the first place. Have these people learned nothing? If it wasn't for the US instigated Afghan War of the 1980's there would have been no Mujahideen Civil War and thus no Taliban in the 1990's.
And yet Stoltenberg and Jolie will be praised and given press even as they pursue agendas that are both sinister and blind. Stoltenberg is a schemer and a tool in the hands of more powerful masters. Jolie is a blind guide and if she had her way... more women would end up being raped and there would be even more carnage.
See also:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.