Burma protests
Sep 25 2007 08:33
they're mostly being reported as a would-be 'velvet revolution' by the media, and no doubt that's what western governments and aung san su kyi are hoping for. but apparently they were triggered by the junta doubling fuel prices, apparently hitting the poorest hardest (i assume it's cooking fuel too as i doubt the poorest burmese own cars?). anyone know much about what's going on?
Sep 25 2007 19:09
#2
I read a little bit about Burma on the BBC. The state has some sort of monopoly on fuel which means it's only available to government supporters. There's a black market which is out of the price range of the working class. They appear to have taken the article down now in favour of wanking over that fucking Aung San Su Kyi moron.
Sep 26 2007 06:40
#3
She doesn't look her age, that's all I know about her. The Burmese government must be so confused when Western leaders start speaking out, "What's the problem suddenly? You didn't care last week." That might be why they never listen.
Sep 26 2007 14:55
#4
I think that we need to applaud the bravery of the demonstrators in confronting the armed might of the Burmese bourgeoisie. As far as I am aware there has been some attacks by the 'riot police' on the demonstrations. The fear from the bourgeoisie must be that the soldiers will refuse orders and go over to the side of the demonstrators. If this happens then I suspect that the bourgeosie or sections of them will suddenly discover the benefits of 'western democracy.' The pity will be that for burma's working class and poorest land labourers the new government will have no solutions to poverty, corruption, decent housing etc. this means that Burma's workers will be forced to make a revolution or continue to live in poverty just as South Africa's working class still suffers after the abolishment of apartheid. I wonder does a revolutionary party of the working class exist in Burma?
Sep 26 2007 15:00
#5
Quote:
"I think that we need to applaud the bravery of the demonstrators in confronting the armed might of the Burmese bourgeoisie."
Seconded.
Quote:
"I wonder does a revolutionary party of the working class exist in Burma?"
I don't think there is any existing "organised political opposition" in Burma, that would be found in exile (there are a lot of refugees in Thailand for instance), hence, partly, the role of clerics in the protests.
Sep 26 2007 15:19
#6
I'm not sure there's any faction seperately organised, seeing as this was originally to be led by the monks and in 88 it was the students.
The UN and EU actions so far would be hilarious if the situation was not so potential dangerous. I can just see all the guys in the junta quaking for fear of not being allowed to go shopping in the states.
And with regards to action from riot police, a Burmese radio station announced that 3 Monks had been shot dead and more injured. The government recognised 1 death.
Sep 26 2007 15:22
#7
Quote:
I wonder does a revolutionary party of the working class exist in Burma?
It's a meaningless question
Sep 26 2007 18:09
#8
There seem to be different reports on the number of deaths so far, some media reports saying 1 monk has been killed, others saying 5 and others 7. No dout it will rise in the next few days.
George Bush said yesterday that America was not happy with the human rights record of the Burmese authorities. That rich coming from a leader that locks people in cages without trial, invades countries killing scores of civilians and from a country that has in the past installed dictators and suppressed revolutions in counties.
Why are George Bush and Gordan Brown coming out with all of these warnings that 'the whole world is watching' etc, something to do with future trade? Maybe even a good US ally in S.E Asia?
I think it may be loosing one tyrannous government and system to go straight into another.
One thing that must be said is that these demonstrators are very brave peope and good luck to them.
Sep 26 2007 22:54
#9
I think Burma is like a state capitalist hold-over, bit like North Korea, or Belarus, and doesn't offer the ammount of investment opportunities to foregin capital it could.
Sep 27 2007 00:44
#10
http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/II27Ae01.html
Quote:
It's a meaningless question
And that's a meaningless comment. Get over yourself!
Quote:
I think Burma is like a state capitalist hold-over, bit like North Korea, or Belarus, and doesn't offer the ammount of investment opportunities to foregin capital it could.
Well that suits China right down to the ground. :s
It's a vassal, and I think the crocodile tears being poured over it can only really be seen as a foil to the respective Western states populations and a veiled threat to China not to fuck with plans for Iran. There are now three carrier battlegroups in the Persian gulf.
Sep 27 2007 01:02
#11
I bet the monks and protestors are servants of imperialism... 
Sep 27 2007 01:29
#12
Quote:
I bet the monks and protestors are servants of imperialism... roll eyes
Then you'd be a moron. 
Sep 27 2007 08:11
#13
Joseph K. wrote:
but apparently they were triggered by the junta doubling fuel prices, apparently hitting the poorest hardest (i assume it's cooking fuel too as i doubt the poorest burmese own cars?).
For those of you fortunate enough not to live in a high inflation economy, it should be pointed out that fuel price increases don't only hit those who own cars. Basically an increase in the price of petrol puts up the price of everything in the shops as everything has to be transported. When there is a large rise in fuel price the effect on consumer prices is very visible.
Devrim
Sep 27 2007 08:47
#14
cheers Dev
Sep 27 2007 13:36
#15
this site provides coverage of the situation - not sure of its politics but seems to be closer to the action than some other sources.
Dundee_United - that article was really interesting, cheers 
Sep 27 2007 14:19
#16
But are monks part of the working class or those excluded from class consciousness? I worry about things like this.
Regards
Peter Good(TCA)
Sep 27 2007 16:16
#17
rasputin, I linked to that already
BBC are reporting 9 dead acordning to government sources.
Sep 27 2007 16:41
#18
gah. so you did. sorry...
Sep 28 2007 18:01
#19
in their latest update, irrawaddy.org says armed ethnic minority groups are siding with the protests.
Quote:
Also on Thursday, Burma’s Karen National Union issued a call for all ethnic ceasefire groups to rise up against the Burmese regime in solidarity with the people of Rangoon and Mandalay.The Shan State Army-South, whose forces are defending areas of southeastern Burma against the Burmese army, also voiced its support for monks and other protesters resisting the regime's efforts to stamp out the rising opposition to its rule.
The KNU, in a statement issued on Thursday from its headquarters in Kawthoole, called on government troops to turn their guns on the ruling generals.
Sep 29 2007 11:09
#20
Terry, there's massive foreign investment in Burma; low wage, very controlled workforce, what could be better? Among big investors are France and ... Britain. It's undeniable that the protesters are brave and, initially, these events seemed part of an uprising against the swingeing increases from the rise of oil prices. The Buddhist monks seem, up to now anyway, to have been directly financed by the regime. There's a strong inter-imperialist element underlying the (empty) threats of Bush and Brown. Both could deal with the opposition for example (they do already) and inserting a friendly regime in this strategic region would be a blow against Russian and Chinese imperialism.
Sep 30 2007 16:42
#21
Re fuel availability: It's rationed and bought at government owned petrol stations, though most people buy it on the black market where it's freely and openly available. Fuel prices were kept low by government subsidy which was recently withdrawn hence the the massive price hike. Also, there's been a suggestion that this was done to kill the black market as the government is in the process of selling it's monopoly to one of it's many corrupt supportors.
Re: Monks and being working class. It's "normal" for most Burmese men to spend a period of time as a monk at some point in the lives. Also, the monastaries offer a place of education, food and shelter to the poorest as an escape route. Lastly, for many "traditional" families it's of great "merit" to have a family member join a monastary. So, if you insist on talking about class in this context, it's perhaps not entirely relevent as members of all "classes" may be represented in the monastaries.
Re the Comments by Alan, about Aung San Suu Kyi. My immediate reaction is not to give them the the contempt they deserve. Yes it's easy to criticise someone from your ivory tower, but given the fact that she's stood up to the regime in a way I doubt many here would have the courage to do and that she has the support of the majority of the population, you might want to find out a little bit more about the situation before you make comments like that.
As for foreign investments: Yes the UK still has investments there, but pretty small beer compared to others. Both China and India have an interest in keeping the Junta in power as it makes it easier for them to cream off the resources. The Burmese government itself is essentially incompentant when it comes to capitalism and as a result makes money by exporting natural resources (gas, timber, gems) to these countries rather than adding value in Burma ie exporting finished timber products instead of timber. The last thing that either of these two want is for Burma to start exploiting it's natural resources for it's own benefit.
Be careful when believing anything reported about the various "ethnic" armies. A lot of them are little better than the junta, possibly understandable given that there's been a civil war going on there since independance, and the actions of the government. And they are just as fractious and capable of infighting as any "left wing" group in the UK.
Sep 30 2007 19:21
#22
It seems that 'western' states would like to get in to the Burmese investment market in a bigger way than they do presently and would support a more liberal regime to faciltiate that. I understand that international credit is not directly available via the IMF and World Bank and yet the 'Guardian' says it was their advice to slash the fuel subsidies which he Junta followed?
Sep 30 2007 20:58
#23
frankblackcat wrote:
Re the Comments by Alan, about Aung San Suu Kyi. My immediate reaction is not to give them the the contempt they deserve. Yes it's easy to criticise someone from your ivory tower, but given the fact that she's stood up to the regime in a way I doubt many here would have the courage to do and that she has the support of the majority of the population, you might want to find out a little bit more about the situation before you make comments like that.
What the fuck? You're aware that this is an anarchist board right?
Oh and btw, if Aung is so popular, how come the uprising has barely focused on her at all? I mean, they once tried to march to her house and that was it. This is not a movement that calls for her installation in power (apart from anything else, it's not coherent enough to offer any alternatives as of yet), in fact the only people who've mentioned her have been the various Western leaders who've suddenly found Burma on the map in the last week. And that, obviously, is cos she'd be a hugely pro-Western leader.
Oct 1 2007 06:34
#24
Alan wrote:
What the fuck? You're aware that this is an anarchist board right?Oh and btw, if Aung is so popular, how come the uprising has barely focused on her at all? I mean, they once tried to march to her house and that was it. This is not a movement that calls for her installation in power (apart from anything else, it's not coherent enough to offer any alternatives as of yet), in fact the only people who've mentioned her have been the various Western leaders who've suddenly found Burma on the map in the last week. And that, obviously, is cos she'd be a hugely pro-Western leader
.
So, as an Anarchist, I'm only allowed to support /have sympathy for a fellow Anarchist and no one else? Better check my party membership's up to date before the thought police kick down my door.
Presumably the pictures of protestors carrying pictures of Aung San Suu Kyu passed you by then, or the fact that access to the the road her house is on has always been blocked and is now reinforced?
"Pro Western", quite possibly, but that's the sort of line you hear from the junta. But I suppose being ideologically pure is the most important issue isn't it.
Oct 1 2007 08:25
#25
I don't know much at all about Aung San Suu Kyi, but I don't think she in any way is representative of a working class movement.
Devrim
Oct 1 2007 09:34
#26
frankblackcat wrote:
Alan wrote:
What the fuck? You're aware that this is an anarchist board right?Oh and btw, if Aung is so popular, how come the uprising has barely focused on her at all? I mean, they once tried to march to her house and that was it. This is not a movement that calls for her installation in power (apart from anything else, it's not coherent enough to offer any alternatives as of yet), in fact the only people who've mentioned her have been the various Western leaders who've suddenly found Burma on the map in the last week. And that, obviously, is cos she'd be a hugely pro-Western leader
So, as an Anarchist, I'm only allowed to support /have sympathy for a fellow Anarchist and no one else?
Yes, because obviously the only options are support for a would-be ruling class, or only ever supporting people who stick a particular label to themselves.
It's got fuck all to do with "purity." My support is with working class movements, not with the would-be elite waiting in the wings to be brought to power. people can call themselves anarchists or whatever the fuck they want; the label isn't the issue, the reality is.
Quote:
Presumably the pictures of protestors carrying pictures of Aung San Suu Kyu passed you by then, or the fact that access to the the road her house is on has always been blocked and is now reinforced?
While I don't doubt that a number of her supporters are involved with the movement, this doesn't seem to be a movement for her or for her movement by any stretch of the imagination.
this is a movement which sprang up independent of her control but which the media (and, I would expect, certain groups within Burma) have tried to graft her onto.
Quote:
"Pro Western", quite possibly, but that's the sort of line you hear from the junta. But I suppose being ideologically pure is the most important issue isn't it.
there you go again. if you have any criticisms of a particular figurehead you must be an ultra-left dogmatist.
Oct 1 2007 11:27
#27
According to a Burmese opposition leader on Newsnight the other night, British investment in Burma is substantial, as is French, Australian, Chinese and American. This protest from the masses was about sudden and dramatic price increases (or swingeing cuts in purchasing power) - it wasn't about "democracy". Never mind what the regime says frank - we can see clearly exactly what they are - the real dangers to the small working class and peasantry in Burma is to fall for the democratic siren song from the same Australian, British, French and American hypocrites that are still funding the repressive regime. The democrat Kyi is one of their celebrities and a pawn in the inter-imperialist rivalries developing in this region.
Oct 1 2007 20:29
#28
frankblackcat wrote:
Alan wrote:
What the fuck? You're aware that this is an anarchist board right?Oh and btw, if Aung is so popular, how come the uprising has barely focused on her at all? I mean, they once tried to march to her house and that was it. This is not a movement that calls for her installation in power (apart from anything else, it's not coherent enough to offer any alternatives as of yet), in fact the only people who've mentioned her have been the various Western leaders who've suddenly found Burma on the map in the last week. And that, obviously, is cos she'd be a hugely pro-Western leader
.
So, as an Anarchist, I'm only allowed to support /have sympathy for a fellow Anarchist and no one else? Better check my party membership's up to date before the thought police kick down my door.
What the fuck? Party membership? Thought police? Sorry mate, Orwellian hyperbole is given short shrift here, as is your insinuation that somehow I'm "authowitawian" for not having anytime for someone who is basically a Western puppet. (Man, I hate it when shit liberals make me sound like a Trot.)
I think you need to analyse what's actually going on in Burma, as opposed to following the rationale of the mainstream media. We aren't talking about a benevolent opposition here, these are full on capitalists whose main ambition is to modernise Burma and turn it from an international pariah into a cash cow of the West. Which isn't great for workers. Read the posts below yours, they're all pretty spot on (for all their faults, the ICC offer a pretty good analysis of international relations).
Oct 2 2007 11:49
#29
Following on from Alan's post:
There's a number of aspects that could be (should be) looked at in relation to Burma - economic crisis, role of peasantry and so on, but the important one for me is the aspect of imperialist rivalries.
Burma is virtually part of China; at the very least, like Tibet, it's a Chinese province. China has make imperialist inroads into Africa (Sudan and Zimbabwe), Uzbekistan, Iran and there's been credible reports of it arming the Taleban. The development of the Chinese military space programme (there is no other), particularly knocking out a satellite, sent a shiver through the American bourgeoisie. China may well want to reign in the "excesses" of the Shwe junta in Burma (though not for Olympic Games reasons, they've fallen out with General Shwe over him letting the Russians in and the junta's interference in North Korea), but because such action would consolodate their grip on Burma. China provides very cheap arms to the junta, the latter provides China not only with cheap raw materials, but with listening posts and, shortly, a naval base in the Indian Ocean. According to Rosemary Righter in The Times yesterday, "an estimated one million Chinese farmers, construction workers and businessmen now live and work in Burma". She goes on to say that that many towns and cities now look more Chinese than Burmese and Chinese currency and Chinese characters dominate. One can only guess at the amount of Chinese military personal, "advisors" and interior ministry police that are present - but they are there in numbers. China is absorbing Burma into its "string of pearls", its imperialist doctrine to expand west into Central Asia and south into the Indian Ocean. All its immediate imperialist neighbours are scared.
The revolt by the poor over fuel prices took the bourgeoisie of the UK, France, Germany and America initially by surprise but they've quickly played the democratic card in order to assert their own imperialist interests and muddy the waters for China. At the moment it looks like the Chinese bourgeoisie will stick with General Shwe's junta in order to defend their own imperialist interests - they can do without a confrontation with younger, nationalistic army officers egged on by the likes of Britain and the US (never mind civilian casualties) with pointless talk about "democracy".
Just an additional historical note: General Aung San, father of the great white hope, Aung San Suu Kyi, was Prime Minister of Burma during the war put in place by the British. There are stories that he was assassinated by British security forces for being too friendly with the Japanese at one stage.
Oct 3 2007 12:18
#30
frank,
A unified Burma doesn't exist - it's an imperialist construct. There's absolutely no point in fighting for a Burmese democracy because there is no prospect of a democratic Burmese nation coming out of it. Only grief. Burma is perfectly placed in the geo-strategic chessboard for China - a gem in "the string of pearls". Look at the map. It overlooks its main, immediate imperialist rivals, India and Pakistan. It's got Tibet and in Nepal pro-Chinese forces are strong. To the south China exerts a strong influence over Cambodia and Laos and towards Vietnam and the Indonesian islands. No wonder Australia is worried... and working with the Burmese junta. China's bellicosity towards Japan ( itself sitting on a mountain of enriched uranium) and especially Taiwan, shows another dimension of Chinese imperialism.
Though important, this region is just another imperialist 'hot-spot' and US imperialism is not far away. It's an example of the multiplication of zones of conflict which is characteristic of this period. I am aware there are those on these boards that don't like the definition "period" but it remains adequate to define a period of time with certain political characteristics. We are still in the period of the break-up of the two-bloc configuration that collapsed at the beginning of the 1990's. Instead of a sword of Damocles hanging over us we now have any number and combination of Damoclean daggers as each major imperialism pushes its own force forwards and tries to disrupt its rivals. As far as Burma is concerned, the lesson is the danger of support for nationalism and "democracy", however critical.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/protests/BurmaProtests.php#23-05
this link was posted elsewhere.