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.