Thursday, October 05, 2006

Burma policy by numbers

If Greg Sheridan’s latest column is anything to go by, we may soon expect the Australian Government to announce closer, even intimate, bilateral ties with the ruling junta in Burma, nominally to ‘enhance regional security’.

You see, Sheridan is worried that Burma could become a staging post for attacks on Western interests in neighbouring countries, if Australia doesn’t take up the junta’s request for more direct anti-terrorism ‘assistance’. Yep, that’s the kind of assistance that entails military and intelligence training and such.

Sheridan acknowledges Burma is “the worst regime in Southeast Asia in terms of gross human rights abuses”. He concedes also that the regime could use whatever assistance Australia gives it to step up repression against its domestic enemies.

To ‘solve’ this ‘moral dilemma’, cue the spectre of another Bali:

The war on terror adds an acute new dimension to the dilemma. If terrorists use Burma as a base to conduct an operation in, say, Bangkok, which kills hundreds of Australians, there will be nobody saying to the Australian Government, well at least you kept the purity of your policy intact. Instead, they will damn Canberra for ignoring a glaring hole in the regional counter-terrorist effort.

There follows discussion of the problem of terrorism in the Philippines, which may or may not illuminate the case of Burma. But, cutting to the inevitable ‘corollary’, Sheridan concludes: “Now the Burmese would like more assistance in their counter-terrorist efforts. Frankly, we’d be ill-advised to decline.”

Well, frankly Sheridan does a sterling job of connecting the dots in such a way that this conclusion seems inevitable. The trick is, of course, to omit any depth of dimension from the discussion.

For one thing, does anyone seriously consider the Burmese junta to be the kind of regime that would tolerate the presence within its territory of any armed groups that were not consummately engaged in protecting and consolidating its own political and commercial interests? Burma’s rulers are cultivating a resources boom, which places them squarely within the Western sphere of influence. They are not about to have any truck with extremist groups that will jeopardise that relationship.

Consider also that repression domestically by the junta of ethnic and other oppositional groups is more likely to promote armed extremism within that imprisoned country. If any ‘assistance’ the West were to lend the regime was to contribute to the repression of these groups, that would likely be sowing the seeds of further extremism, very possibly aimed towards the West. It was for these kinds of considerations that the UN Security Council recently decided that the Burmese regime’s egregious abuses are a threat to peace and security in the region.

In his column, Sheridan describes how Burma is already the beneficiary of Australian ‘anti-terrorism assistance’ by arrangement through ASEAN. Perhaps that’s already a long enough spoon with which to sup with the devil.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg Sheridan sounds like an ass-wipe. So a corrupt, oppressive military regime in Burma may increase the likelihood of terrorists using it as a staging ground, and the solution is to provide that government with training - rather than supporting the establishment of a non-corrupt, non-oppressive, non-military regime? His article shows the marked lack of understanding not only of how and why terrorists operate, in general and in the region, but also a marked lack of understanding of Burma and the opposition movements there specifically. Where does he think these terrorists may come from? The south of Thailand? Bangladesh? Malaysia? No terrorist bent on destroying the west would think that a country in the midst of a genocide and civil war is a better place to hang out than any of those neighboring countries. Nevermind the fact that so-called terrorist attacks in mainland southeast Asia don't target western interests. They have their own home-grown imperialism to fight. His editorial sounds like the ravings of a narcissist.

And illegal Burmese migrants are bringing HIV and drugs with the intent to commit crimes in Thailand?!! Way to reinforce false negative stereotypes of refugees. Goddamn.

6/10/06 5:24 AM  
Blogger Jacob A. Stam said...

"And illegal Burmese migrants are bringing HIV and drugs..."

Yeah well the spread of disease is indicative of the junta's utter neglect of population health, and clearly another reason why it must go.

8/10/06 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the spread of disease is typically used against the government - and it's a reasonable concern. But, I think the spread of disease within the country is likely a greater threat. I'm not an expert on HIV, but following the emails and posts from the HIV in Myanmar blog (him.civiblog.org) has been informative - There isn't much evidence to support the claim that migrants are bringing HIV into Thailand. It seems the rates of HIV among refugees is relatively quite low due to various circumstances such as their rural isolation in Burma and Thailand. For migrant workers, many get pulled into the sex trade, and I gather that they are then at greater risk of catching HIV in Thailand than they are of bringing it in.

We should be careful not to further persecute or create false stereotypes of refugees in our efforts to vilify the junta. Sheriden's statement seemed to reflect the fear mongering and vilification of 'boat people' that goes on in Australia, more than any understanding of the Burmese/Thailand situation, or effort to present the truth.

His bias should be obvious from the use of "illegal migrants" and saying they are also bringing in drugs. Placing HIV in that sentence places the burden of being an HIV positive migrant into the realm of criminality. Of the million or so Burmese in Thailand, many are not 'illegal', and many are refugees - which by default, makes them also not 'illegal'.

9/10/06 6:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should say, the spread of disease and risk of new strains of disease developing within the country is the real threat - rather than the current spread of disease through migrants to other countries. Viruses can also be picked up by visitors to the country, or spread though non-migrant border populations. Claiming the risk is that will be carried by illegal immigrants is not fully accurate and does unneccesarily reinforce negative stereotypes. Are there any facts or statistics quantifying the types or rate of disease being carried across borders by migrants? Or even just 'illegal migrants', as Sheriden referred to - as though signing the guestworker registry improves your health.

9/10/06 6:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home