View Single Post
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2008, 08:05 PM
hairymarx hairymarx is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 904
hairymarx is just really nicehairymarx is just really nicehairymarx is just really nicehairymarx is just really nice
Credits: 7,132
Default Will US aid to Burma have 'strings' attached to it?

The Burmese tyrants are understandbly reluctant to allow US aid into their country because they know only too well that the aid will probably be subject to economic pre-conditions further down the line. Burma is rich in natural resources and the Burmese junta are well aware that the natural disaster which has befallen their country will provide the potential opportunity for yet another US-led invasion and subsequent economic liberalisation (code for plunder) of their countries resources.

The writer and activist Naomi Klein has documented in detail the impacts of natural disasters in third world countries and the West's response to them, in her book "Disaster Capitalism". She argues that natural disasters provide an ideal opportunity for Western governments to re-configure the economies of third world countries through the implementation of neo-liberal economic policies and/or invasion. Since the disaster in Burma, we have been bombarded with a constant stream of anti- Burmese government propaganda in relation to the alleged prevention of Western aid being allowed to reach the people of that stricken country.

Compare and contrast this with the events that followed Katrina where Bush refused practical help from both Iran and Cuba for political and ideological reasons. The Burmese junta are now being criticised by the West for the same reasons that Bush was NOT criticised. The media remains absolutely silent in regards to this blatant piece of Western hypocrisy. Equally, we are hard pressed to read or hear anything in our media about the humanitarian crisis currently occuring in Ethiopia because we are more interested in her enemy who the US is backing with weapons and tanks. That enemy is Sudan, whose capital Darfur, the media readily reports on, and celebrities like George Clooney endorse.

Could this Western pre-occupation with Darfur and Burma have anything to do with the fact that both are rich in natural resources? I need say little more in this respect, suffice to mention that our Western governments are not primarily concerned (and never have been) about the various humanitarian crisis in the world unless we can get a quick buck in return. Media coverage of resource rich Burma has reached saturation point as the likely pre-requisite for future invasion and subsequent control of their resources. Watch this space.
Reply With Quote