Gentlemen, Revolutionaries, Scholars & Bules
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#62569 - 29 Sep 07 15:19 Whither Burma...
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
I've taken this part from the Current Affairs thread as it's a separate topic on how and why the US will take over Burma. The first two quotes were from that thread, my response to Naga is below his quote.

Quoting: riccardo
Actually, what makes it different is that the American gov't is SERIOUSLY keen for change in Yangon for a variety of reasons (read: oil/gas/minerals), and they had/have no such in interest in those 2 hellholes on the dark continent. And surprisingly, it's not a divisive, partisan issue in Washington, all parties agree that the USA needs to get in there.

"I'd give it about one or two years -- max. The big US-based NGOs and MNCs are already gearing up to move in."


Quoting: naga
Bullshit, the US govt hasn't done shit and is not going to either; there is serious oil exploration in Sudan, several firms are already there. Why do you think arab militias are kicking people off their land? Not to raise crops....

Burma doesn't even figure on Washingtons' radar, US politicians will only get off their arse if there is a quick sound bite to be had. If they let Indo off the hook after ET, they are not going to lift a finger for Burma.

They took it up the arse in Venezuela too, so now they are going to take on a military regime in Rangoon? don't think so...

NGO's are about as effective as black magic curing AIDS; Squaring up to Burma means squaring up to China and the USA doesn't have the balls or the capability to do it; they will let this one go through to the keeper and keep fuck-arsing about in the ME over oil.


REASONS FOR INTENSE U.S. INTEREST
1. The current US administration knows beyond any doubt that there is a nice 1-year window of opportunity right now. China -- which has the most influence over Yangon and is its lifeline -- is trying to be on its best behavior ahead of the Olympics (August 2008)and is thus willing to compromise to keep people happy. Just as importantly, Bush and Co. know they'll be voted out in November 2008.

2. Burma, as the US still refers to it, is in a highly strategic geopolitical location. (An ideal location for a US military base/presence, in terms of south Asia. It shares borders with India, China, Bangladesh and Thailand, putting them right on China's back door.)

3. Massive recent finds of gas reserves, in addition to already known oil and mineral reserves and a fairly large presence of US oil companies already with footholds in the country.

4. It's ruled by the internationally condemned SLORC junta, which has imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi. This gives Bush and Co. a great way to justify intervention. Washington isn't that concerned about the junta abuses and might otherwise gladly work with them, but they DO realize that the Suu Kyi situation will allow them greater leeway to do as they please, because that is enough of a reason to silence leftists in the int'l community.

5. Bush and Co. have an intense desire to police the Strait of Malacca and this, along with their presence in Singapore, would essentially put them at both ends of it.

6. Sentimental value/pride for the CIA, and its forerunner the O.S.S. They essentially cut their teeth during WW2 in Burma and its surroundings and continued with a larger and larger presence to this day. They later worked/traded directly with the infamous drug lord (and arguably the world's richest human) Khun Sa. They singlehandedly created 1/2 million junkies among the allied troops in the Vietnam war and shipped the uncut junk back via body bags (no customs), which made their way onto the streets of N. America and Europe, thus making their entire SE Asian operations more than profitable using money that was not accounted for in their books. Still today, most authorities agree, that the US embassy in Yangon has always been led and staffed by CIA agents. A document released by German intelligence confirms this.

POLICY MEASURES
Clinton issued Proclamation 6925 in 1996 to intensify sanctions and Executive Order 13-047 in 1997, which bans all new international investments from the US and discourages its allies from doing so.

Bush signed Executive Order 13-310 in 2003 prohibiting all foreign remittances to Burma and forbidding international financial institutions from extending financial aid to the country. Bush also signed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act in 2003, which bars exports to the US from Burma.

Bush and Co. have been urging the EU to impose similar sanctions against the country. The US applied a lot of pressure on ASEAN to reject Burma's entry into the regional association. When that failed, they downgraded ASEAN-US and ASEAN-EU meetings and tried to isolate Yangon diplomatically. Later, they applied pressure on ASEAN to change its policy toward Burma.


_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#62572 - 29 Sep 07 15:27 Re: Whither Burma... [Re: riccardo]
Dilli Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 26 Feb 06
Posts: 8044
Loc: Nearest Bar
Question on 5. Bush and Co. have an intense desire to police the Strait of Malacca and this (along with their presence in Singapore, would essentially put them at both ends of it).

They are already heavily allied with Thailand so why would this be necessary? Thailand is also geographically more strategic.
_________________________
Menace to Sobriety


Top
#62573 - 29 Sep 07 15:27 Re: Whither Burma... [Re: Dilli]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
Thais won't allow actual US base.
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#62574 - 29 Sep 07 15:38 Re: Whither Burma... [Re: riccardo]
Dilli Offline
Pujangga Besar

Registered: 26 Feb 06
Posts: 8044
Loc: Nearest Bar
Every time I go to Thailand there are US Servicemen there, Ok, this is in the Gulf of Thailand (Operation Cobra is an annual event) and U-Tapao is commonly used by the USA.

I do not believe there is anything which would prohibit the USA being given the right to monitor the Malacca Staits from Southern Thailand if it was requested.

_________________________
Menace to Sobriety


Top
#62575 - 29 Sep 07 16:03 Re: Whither Burma... [Re: Dilli]
riccardo Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 2195
Loc: Jakarta
Oh they do that, no doubt about it. But if they can increase the coverage all the way up, all the better. Regardless that issue is really more of a nice byproduct of intervention. The other things on my list are more pertinent, particularly 1, 2 and 3.
_________________________
Just here proffering my pearls to swine, my throat to wolves and my trousers to the flagpole.

Top
#62709 - 02 Oct 07 02:07 Re: Whither Burma... [Re: riccardo]
naga Offline
Member++

Registered: 18 Jan 07
Posts: 260
Loc: undisclosed location
1: Again, more semantics, the Chinese don't care about their image and there is nothing the world can do to intimidate them or make them change their current support for the regime. China will carry on as usual, the Olympics are a business event, not a sporting event and foreign firms have too much too lose to be bothered fucking with China at this stage. China will make token efforts. Again, nothing will happen.

2:Completely wrong, Burma is far from a strategic place. USA already has agreements with India and a long standing military relationship with Thailand. The USA has free reign to use bases in Northern Thailand and has done so since the Korean, let alone Vietnam conflicts. They don't need to have bases there when they already longstanding agreements. Plus all their e-surveillance is conducted via Australia.

3: LNG reserves make it no more strategic than Afghanistan, Venezuela or Central Asia; there is way too much hard work to be doen in order to gain access, and the govt doesn't have the energy or capital to do so; Iran will get bombed before they lift a finger for Burma.

4:The USA hasn't given a shite about her in the past, so why would they now? They know that the Chinese, Singaporean and Thai govts are making waaay too much money from the way things are being done now to upset that balance, just like during the Suharto era.

5:The Americans are only interested in policing MS if the regional hosts prove they cannot guarantee security, which they can. The USA is only concerned if Oil and other strategic commmodities fail to get through; the Malayasians and Singaporeans are already on top of this and a couple of minor hijackings doens't change the security situation.

6: Again, complete crap; ALL embassies are staffed with CIA officers, so what?

The Burmese embassy has more DEA agents on the ground than CIA due to the heroin issue. Historically, elements of the CIA have been accused of being involved in heroin importation, but much has been exagerrated. The CIA, like any other govt institution is a massive bureacracy, wracked by managerial incompetence and turf wars. To think this place takes precedence over ME and Central Asian embassies given the current global geo-political climate is pure fallacy.

CIA are more likely to be interested in stealing minutes from Than Shwe's desk than overthrowing the regime.
_________________________
"Keep on rockin' in the free world"

Top
#62996 - 04 Oct 07 20:29 Re: Whither Burma... [Re: naga]
naga Offline
Member++

Registered: 18 Jan 07
Posts: 260
Loc: undisclosed location
bueller?........
_________________________
"Keep on rockin' in the free world"

Top
#63000 - 04 Oct 07 20:37 Re: Whither Burma... [Re: naga]
kenyeung Offline
Pujangga

Registered: 16 Apr 07
Posts: 2374
Loc: Indonesia
I hope you have watched Not Another Teen Movie.

Top


Moderator:  NetCop