Hoots has an excellent post up on the happenings in Burma with lots of links. He quotes from the New York Times.
Natural gas from Myanmar, which generates 20 percent of all electricity in Thailand, keeps the lights on in Bangkok. The gas, which this year will cost about $2.8 billion, is the largest single export for Myanmar's otherwise impoverished and cash-strapped economy.
Thailand's gas imports highlight the dilemma facing China, India, Singapore and Malaysia, among other countries, as they vie for Myanmar's hardwoods, minerals, gems -- and access to its market of 47 million people.
At a time of spiraling world energy prices, the prospect of extracting resources appears to override the embarrassment and shame of dealing with a junta that has attracted world notoriety. For this reason, the countries that have the most leverage over Myanmar seem to be the most reluctant to use it, analysts say.
Hoots then goes on with a report on the US relationship with Burma:
UNITED STATES
Relationship: Washington has called for political change in Burma and expressed support for the recent protests. In 1997 the US banned new investment in Burma, and in 2003 it banned most Burmese imports and dollar transactions. It has announced it will impose further sanctions against 14 senior officials in Burma's government, including the country's acting prime minister and defence minister. But in common with the other Western countries, the US realises its influence is weak when compared to that of China, India and Asean.
Interests: As a result of sanctions few economic interests remain, a major exception being the US share in the Chevron-Total gas project.
Comment: "The world is watching the people of Burma take to the streets to demand their freedom and the American people stand in solidarity with these brave individuals." US President George W Bush.
Hoots then finishes with this comment:
Don't wanna mess with that Chevron deal, do we?
Stuff like this doesn't help my cynicism one bit.
Actually it is that very cynicism first evidenced with respect to Iraq that prevents action.
Plus I'm not sure it is Bush/Chevron.
Total is one of the most corrupt oil companies in the world.
Do a 'net search on:
Maurice Strong Total Oil for Food
for starters. Mr. Strong is a Canadian. Total is a French Company. I did a posts on that when the topic was hot. Belmont Club was also on the case. Especially the Oil for Food angle. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review also looks into Mr. Strong.
BTW what would you suggest Bush do? He has his hands full trying to clean up the mess genocider Saddam created. Remember the mass graves of women and children in Iraq? And suppose Bush did do something. How soon before the "No Blood for Oil" folks started marching and screaming. The left/Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. The worst kleptocracies/dictatorships in the world are countries that depend on resource extraction.
If you really are interested in fixing more places we are going to need a much bigger army. What are the odds that the Democrat congress will give the authorization and vote more funds? Even if they did it takes two years to get new troops into the field.
It is really too bad that the Iraq adventure isn't totally bi-partisan. We might then be able to help more of the oil despotisms in the world.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5610
Comments
How about a covert CIA action to airdrop guns to the less pacifistic protestors? I realize, of course, that they may be preparing just such an operation--but I don't know about it because it's covert.
tim maguire · October 5, 2007 10:48 AM
I love the mental gymnastics liberals go through: this guy is essentially saying "Bush should invade Burma and topple its government, but he won't because of the OIL COMPANIES!"
And you just know he also says "Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq and toppled its government, but he did because of the OIL COMPANIES!"
Libs can ignore international networks of Islamic terror organizations, but if there's a whiff of petroleum anywhere, they'll sniff it out!
Trimegistus · October 5, 2007 11:28 AM
Well sure, helping oil despotisms is great and all, I guess. But I'm not sure I would want to see W and his current batch of geniuses start calling the shots in Burma. Those people have enough problems as it is. Seriously.
Doctorb Science · October 5, 2007 04:10 PM
There is currently a genocide going on in the tribal areas of Burma. Better to let it go on than have Bush dip his oar in the water?
I suppose it is best that the Burmese die unmourned until Hillary gets in.
I apologize, as that comment was really flippant. Obviously doing nothing is not the answer. But the idea that the only other option is for the US military to go in there is kind of a messed-up one too.
As for Hillary, I honestly don't know. It seems that candidates for president are much more peaceable and reasonable, and that once in power they become substantially more violence-prone and destructive. Her ideas on foreign policy *right now* are pretty scary.
Doctorb Science · October 5, 2007 09:37 PM
Doctorb,
I was reading Michael Totten recently.
He called our military "The Peace Corps with Muscle". Which I think is correct.
But I'm all ears if you have a better plan I'd like to hear it.
You do recall the mass graves of women and children from Saddam's Iraq don't you? How do you propose to take a regime like that out? Wring your hands and hope for a better way than military force?
Is your attitude that it is better that the Burmese Generals have blood on their hands than that we have any on ours?
Should we just cry in anguish and wash our hands of it, because we will have to kill a lot of bastards and some innocents to make changes? OK. That is a position.
I grew up a liberal. A JFK liberal. It is an ugly world out there and some times you have to do ugly things to make it better. If that is too hard for you then leave the work to others and those who support them.
Go on your peace marches. "No Blood for Oil". And By God we will have peace for our time. You will excuse me if I don't buy it.
The real Peace Corps is still out there, getting dysentery while improving the conditions of some of the world's poorest people.
The idea of killing "a lot of bastards and some innocents" may appeal to you (and by all means if it does: www.goarmy.com),
but going by the last couple of times Commander Cuckoo Bananas has sent our fighting folks overseas, it seems more likely to be "a hell of a lot of bastards and a whole lot of innocents".
Doctorb Science · October 6, 2007 10:44 PM
Drb,
Proud veteran of the US Navy. Nuclear Reactor Operator USS Bainbridge. That chickenhawk chickenshit don't go far with me.
I'm sure the Burmese Generals can't wait for the Peace Corps delegation to arrive. Please let me know when they do.
What do you think? After 100,000 are killed? Maybe 200,000? More?
And what job do you think the Generals will give them? Burial detail?
I still like the way Michael Totten describes our military:
I like how one Iraqi describes the difference between our military and Al Queda. It is approximately: "Al Queda gets paid to take lives, the American's get paid to save lives". I wish I had a link. If I find it I'll post it.
It is possible the reports you are getting about Iraq are not exactly correct. From the Totten piece:
We ate in silence for a few minutes while he, apparently, wondered whether or not he should say what he was thinking.
"Are you going to bash us or what" he finally said.
"I didn't come all the way out here in August just to bash you guys," I said. I felt some sympathy for his complaint, but was at the same time tired of hearing it. "I write what I see and hear, good and bad. You won't get bad press from me unless you act badly."
"Thank you," he said. "You'll be the first."
I'm hardly the first. I know several journalists, political liberals as well as conservatives, who write it straight and don't wallow in soldier-bashing. But the soldier-bashing that's also out there sure does make an impression. Every journalist who embeds in Iraq must hear these complaints as often as I did, and I heard it daily.
Yes yes, Peace Corps with Muscle, I get it. But do you really think that the United States is going to act with any kind of legitimacy at all there? Given the degree of involvement of the administration and the Burmese junta?
Doctorb Science · October 6, 2007 11:44 PM
Yes yes, Peace Corps with Muscle, I get it. But do you really think that the United States is going to act with any kind of legitimacy at all there?
If only there were some kind of accountability for those who are responsible for this sort of crime.
Doctorb Science · October 6, 2007 11:45 PM
The only accountability will come from a landing of the US Marines.
That is practically impossible for two reasons:
1. Not enough Marines
2. No "Blood for Oil"
3. No political call for action
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
How about a covert CIA action to airdrop guns to the less pacifistic protestors? I realize, of course, that they may be preparing just such an operation--but I don't know about it because it's covert.