In the light of the fiction we are being fed, this documentary by Pilger is worth another look. Its a rarely shown documentary but is on ITV2 tonight.
Burma should make an interesting case for media watchers and yet the country is media-invisible, not helped by a ban on foreign journalists which prevent first hand accounts or visual images reaching us. Yet this is an ex-British colony with a British educated democracy leader in detention for 9 of the last 15 years, and yet registers little or no concern in Britain or elsewhere. Why ?
Not because of a lack of HR issues. The military regime register on the high-end of all comparative scales in human rights abuses - child soldiers, forced labour, systematic rape, torture, ethnic cleansing, millions of refugees & IDPs, political prisoners, prohibition on media and political expression.
The international community have no appetite for exploring a third way for a country crying out for non-violent intervention to restore democracy after 42 years of oppression. A policy of "constructive engagement" with the regime has failed, EU member states do nothing while they increase trade. And yet, alone stand the USA who have imposed targetted sanctions.
Burmese democrats are as wary of any group of the motives of George W Bush but recognise that he is the 1st to heed their calls to target sanctions on regime-controlled businesses. Isnt it farcical that Bush is seen as a friend of democracy in the tragedy that is Burma, not by the Chalabi-ists a la Iraq, but by genuine lifelong workers for a democratic future who have been abandoned by the UN and the international community?We want the whole world to enjoy greater democracy and higher standards of human rights, but we should be wary of hidden agendas.
It is well-known that the UK and other wealthy nations do business with the autocratic Burmese regime, but they hardly depend on it for resources, cheap labour or regional stability. Other nations in South East Asia provide ample bargain-basement labour, often with governments claiming to uphold anti-imperialist revolutions (e.g. Vietnam) or hiding behind a veneer of democracy of pluralist democracy (e.g. Thailand).
A large section of the British intelligentsia, not least the BBC, have long championed Aung San Suu Kyi's cause, in what often appears to be a one-woman show. Indeed one could be forgiven for concluding that long-term Anglo-American commercial interests are best served by installing her into power by imposing sanctions on Burma (Myanmar) to hold fresh elections and then letting Western consumerism run riot.
I would support measures to stop British business from outsourcing work, running subsidiaries, selling arms or bidding for construction contracts in Myanmar, but ultimately it is up to the Burmese people to overthrow their government and decide the extent to which international big business can take over,fully aware of the adverse effects in neighbouring countries.
Burma should make an interesting case for media watchers and yet the country is media-invisible, not helped by a ban on foreign journalists which prevent first hand accounts or visual images reaching us. Yet this is an ex-British colony with a British educated democracy leader in detention for 9 of the last 15 years, and yet registers little or no concern in Britain or elsewhere. Why ?
Not because of a lack of HR issues. The military regime register on the high-end of all comparative scales in human rights abuses - child soldiers, forced labour, systematic rape, torture, ethnic cleansing, millions of refugees & IDPs, political prisoners, prohibition on media and political expression.
The international community have no appetite for exploring a third way for a country crying out for non-violent intervention to restore democracy after 42 years of oppression. A policy of "constructive engagement" with the regime has failed, EU member states do nothing while they increase trade. And yet, alone stand the USA who have imposed targetted sanctions.
Burmese democrats are as wary of any group of the motives of George W Bush but recognise that he is the 1st to heed their calls to target sanctions on regime-controlled businesses. Isnt it farcical that Bush is seen as a friend of democracy in the tragedy that is Burma, not by the Chalabi-ists a la Iraq, but by genuine lifelong workers for a democratic future who have been abandoned by the UN and the international community?We want the whole world to enjoy greater democracy and higher standards of human rights, but we should be wary of hidden agendas.
It is well-known that the UK and other wealthy nations do business with the autocratic Burmese regime, but they hardly depend on it for resources, cheap labour or regional stability. Other nations in South East Asia provide ample bargain-basement labour, often with governments claiming to uphold anti-imperialist revolutions (e.g. Vietnam) or hiding behind a veneer of democracy of pluralist democracy (e.g. Thailand).
A large section of the British intelligentsia, not least the BBC, have long championed Aung San Suu Kyi's cause, in what often appears to be a one-woman show. Indeed one could be forgiven for concluding that long-term Anglo-American commercial interests are best served by installing her into power by imposing sanctions on Burma (Myanmar) to hold fresh elections and then letting Western consumerism run riot.
I would support measures to stop British business from outsourcing work, running subsidiaries, selling arms or bidding for construction contracts in Myanmar, but ultimately it is up to the Burmese people to overthrow their government and decide the extent to which international big business can take over,fully aware of the adverse effects in neighbouring countries.
