Burma’s been in the news a lot this last year—first with the huge monks’ protests, then with the strike of Cyclone Nargis. In the first case the monks were put down brutally, in the second case the government allowed in little foreign aid for cyclone victims, and did very little itself. Humanitarian disaster upon humanitarian disaster and the West has pretty much been able to do nothing but look on in dismay and mouth empty words.
The reasons why are simple enough, and they are symbolized by nothing better than Burma’s new capital of Naypyidaw, which separates the Generals from those they rule.
Naypyidaw is Myanmar’s new capital, built in secret by the ruling generals and announced to the public two and a half years ago, when it was a fait accompli.
A nine-hour drive north from the former capital, Yangon, it looks like nothing else in this impoverished country, where one out of three children is malnourished and many roads are nothing more than dirt tracks.
Workers in Naypyidaw (pronounced nay-pee-DAW) are building multilevel, flower-covered traffic circles. In a country of persistent power shortages and blackouts, street lamps brightly illuminate the night, like strings of pearls running up and down scrub-covered hills. On the city’s outskirts there is a modern and tidy zoo complete with an air-conditioned penguin house…
It would be easy to write off the move to Naypyidaw as an inconsequential caprice of the secretive generals who have been in power for 46 years. But the transfer of the entire bureaucracy to this relatively remote location, where malaria is still endemic and cellphones do not work, has drained the country’s finances and widened the gulf between the rulers and the ruled.
Even the most charitable observers of Myanmar’s junta portray its members as out of touch. Now they are literally out of sight: the generals live and work in a guarded zone of Naypyidaw that is off limits to all but senior officers.
But this is more than symbolic. Naypyidaw works for the government because the government does not need most of the people in Burma. They just need an army that is willing to put down their fellow citizens, and they need the money to pay for that army. Since in a country like Burma men are cheap and can be paid very little, that isn’t that expensive.
You run this on two levels. On one level it’s like feudalism—you take the food and goods you need, that the peasants can produce, from them and you use it to feed your army and provide it with very basic necessities. Keep the troops separate from the population so they don’t develop sympathies with them, and use troops from different regions to crush dissent.
For weaponry and the advanced communications that make armies run, you need foreign currency. In Burma’s case that comes primarily from natural gas, sold to Thailand; from timber (teak) sold to Thailand and China, and from opium and gems sold to everyone. This doesn’t provide a ton of money, but it does provide enough money that you can buy the foreign weapons and technology that you need (for example, a test reactor from the Russians. Yes, another backwards hole that is trying to get nukes, that’s Burma).
Since those industries don’t require a heck of a lot of workers, since your need for food and so on is relatively minor and since tax from your citizens isn’t the main source of your real budget (what can you buy with Burmese currency that is worth having or which you can’t just take anyway) you really don’t need most of the rest of the people in the country. They aren’t producing anything you need—neither money nor goods.
So when they revolt, crushing the revolt is a no-brainer. Use as much brutality as it takes and if it results in a sullen population who hates your guts, who cares? You don’t need them to be good workers. You don’t need them to invest in the future. You don’t need them to be happy. You don’t need most of them, period, you just need a percentage of them as soldiers and another bunch to work the export industries, and they can do that under the muzzle, if necessary.
So what you wind up with is an elite which does not need its citizenry. Their power and their wealth is not based on having a prosperous population, the way that a modern nation’s are. Instead it is based on controlling a few key economic activities, and paying a small number of the poor to keep the rest of the poor in their place.
This model, while extreme, should be recognizable to Americans and other westerners. The rise of the financial class and the disassociation of the prosperity of western elites from their own population’s prosperity, while larval compared to Burma is based on the same impulse and the same raw calculus of benefit and power.
Does this model, in Burma, mean that the situation is hopeless? Yes, and no. It means that if you’re serious, you have to cut the money ties. And that means you have to convince Thailand to find another source for timber and natural gas, convince China to stop buying timber as well, and crack down hard on gems and the opium trade. Governments like the Burmese one fall when they can no longer afford to pay the troops and pay other militarily capable forces in the country off. Till then nothing will work.
That means that there is a cost to tumbling Burma’s government. It can be measured in dollars and Yuan and Baht, and it is not insignificant. But it also isn’t huge, and if the West wasn’t completely bankrupt, it could be done if it was considered worthwhile. But when the US government runs only courtesy of Chinese lending, well, the US doesn’t have a lot of money, or leverage, to spare. And the Chinese certainly aren’t going to intervene on their own: China has good reasons to feel that a country’s internal affairs are its internal affairs and no business of anyone else. Nor is Thailand going to voluntarily stop buying natural gas from Burma, power outs aren’t an option and natural gas isn’t easy to buy and transport from elsewhere.
So, while it would be theoretically possible to topple Burma, it isn’t going to happen till the West sorts out its own finances and until the technology exists to get off natural gas. Which is to say, the Burmese are going to be suffering for quite a while yet.
When we fail to deal with our own problems we become incapable of helping others with theirs.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Thank you for this, Ian. I’ve been wondering where the pressure points are to solve this problem.
Yeah, Ian, there’s nothing at all like having a ready made, semi-willing (if not forced) feeder of cannon fodder willing to do the bidding of the ruling class
Keep enough of the population alive to keep the bodies flowing into the forces and it’s all good right?
Excellant hard-hitting post, Ian.
Given what you’ve laid out, quite clearly, in your fourth, full paragraph from the end (ominous term, that, excepting awful movies and what we all hope soon befalls the Bu$h Co Aministration), perhaps some in the West would simply prefer to ‘top’ the Junta with their own ‘ambitions’.
Perhaps this is but a ‘teaching moment’ for future thugs of a truly international array …
Pay one group of the poor to keep down the other part. A very old tradition.
A very old AND successful tradition.
But China does need its people. Maybe the rise of the Chinese middle class will help advance progressive causes in the world.
Thank you for expressing so thoroughly the tragic formula for oppression. Particularly striking:
Hearing about Zimbabwe all week. This tragedy … already a tragedy before the cyclone. Then I realize how distracted or indifferent many of our own citizens are about their basic constitutional issues. There but for the grace of God….
So, while it would be theoretically possible to topple Burma, it isn’t going to happen till the West sorts out its own finances and until the technology exists to get off natural gas. Which is to say, the Burmese are going to be suffering for quite a while yet.
The technology does exist. The will is not there. Big Oil runs the show.
Excellent post, Ian. Thank you.
This model for government is old but it does not work well in the long term sooner or later a crisis will come that cannot be met by a divided country. The current government will fail and the new government will unite the people by rallying them against the old government and its foreign supporters.
And if history is our guide, they will form their own oppressive regime.
Digg
Bush trusts Burma with Nuclear Technology? When public dissatisfaction reaches high enough levels the government will need to attack an external enemy as internal enemies will no longer suffice as scapegoats.
Assuming an internal crisis doesn’t take out this government.
It is almost a given that Burma will invade another country.
Abused kids sometimes become abusers themselves, sometimes not. What we do or don’t do now may make the difference. But I don’t trust the Bush administration to do anything right.
Thank you for the excellent post.
When you say the West – does that include the EU and Canada?
In time. At this point the Communist party still keeps one part of the poor around in uniforms to crush people if necessary (they don’t need an army that big for defense). The key point of Tianamen, for example, was when the army group normally stationed in Beijing backed down and left, and another army group was brought in to put people down. The second that army group backed down, and there was some doubt at the time it would happen, I knew it was over. I think the general in charge realized that he didn’t have the numbers and enough of his fellow generals wouldn’t back him. But those scenarios are what keep communist party potentates up at night – troops that get too close to those they’re supposed to get in line and become unreliable. Keeping them seperate and using them in places they don’t come from and haven’t been stationed in too long is very important.
Oh yes. We aren’t broke, but we aren’t “rich states” any more. We just don’t have the sort of surplus that lets you buy out such problems any more. All the money that would be used for that sort of stuff is flooding into the oilarchies and building up Dubai. Refusal to deal with the energy issue and various export/import issues means we have no money to deal with problems like this.
(Canada’s a bit of an exception to this since it has a petro-currency. But it’s too small to really play power games).
Convince China that Burma is somehow a threat. Maybe expose Burma’s Opium production at the Olympics when all eyes are on China? That would cause China to lose face publicly. I don’t see any other levers we can use on China to move Burma.
Unless maybe a refugee crisis of Burmese possibly going to China to find work after the Cyclone occurs then China will talk to Burma all on their own.
Actually the test reactor is from Russia, iirc.
The long run can be rather long. You know the Keynes line “when we’re all dead”.
Who is permitted to have nukes and who is not, is a distracting, fear-mongering side show. Bushco demonstrated a total lack of concern regarding loose Soviet nukes. Perhaps even more important, was the Bushco disregard for the many unemployed former Soviet nuclear scientists. Presumably there are still some looking for work.
Thank you. The beginning of the post reminded me of North Korea, the satellite picture from space at night, only one city lit up. Now Burma seems the same way, with nukes.
I know that but Bush is not making any noise about Russia selling this reactor to Burma.
If you just watch the MSM news you would think that Iran and North Korea were the only countries trying to build Nuclear Reactors.
Bush arguments against rogue regimes getting Nuclear Technology fall flat if Burma lets beat up Monks, lets not let foreigners bring their people food after a Cyclone gets this Tech.
Hmmm beats up
MonksNuns, doesn’t help their own people much after aCycloneHurricanewantshas Nuclear Tech jeez this sounds so familiar.True maybe a few generations.
Hence Blackwater bringing in mercenaries from other countries. Americans are not going to shoot their own citizens.
The side show is permitted to keep the fear going Bush never went after Ossama in Pakistan because
a) he is afraid
b) he respects the sovereign rights of other nations like Pakistan 707
c) Bush needs enemies to keep the fear going
Well thats my theory anyway I am open to suggestions.
Real good point didn’t the Romans do something similar?
I think there are lots of “conservative” Americans who would be happy to shoot DFH’s. They’ve been subject to a generation of propaganda about how evil lefties are, and many of them really believe it.
The best thing that happened in the US in the past 8 years was actually the way the Republicans messed up with the army because of Iraq. 4 years ago, if Bush had pulled a coup, I think the military would have supported him. Now, they’d probably rush to hang him themselves.
But the basic issue still remains.
Yes we know the answer,
“All Animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”
The Romans always set in a Legion of Troops from a different region of the empire, to avoid local sympathies. They did not mind if the Legionnaires settled in the new country, because they’d be loyal to Rome.
Book Salon upstairs with Dan Froomkin hosting Myra MacPherson, author of bio on I. F. Stone
Dan Froomkin here for Book Salon!
If we encourage green tech in Thailand and China maybe they won’t need so much Natural gas?
Low tech easy to make solar ovens could reduce the need for firewood and Natural gas in both countries.
Plus it would help lower China’s carbon footprint at a very low cost quick mass implementation of an idea that the government decides is policy is something Communist governments do, do quite well.
How do you think the military will respond if Bu$h Co invites them to visit Iran?
Will the Air Force rally to the Bu$h flag?
Several dangly questions cast a pall over whatever insight the military, and by this we both mean “the Brass”, don’t we, Ian?
BTW, I neglected to thank you approprietly for this post, Ian.
So?
A substantial Thank you!!!
;~D
“So what you wind up with is an elite which does not need its citizenry. Their power and their wealth is not based on having a prosperous population, the way that a modern nation’s are. Instead it is based on controlling a few key economic activities, and paying a small number of the poor to keep the rest of the poor in their place.”
This also sounds like Zimbabwe, and also even, in some ways, like America under the Republicans. “Democracy” to the Bushies under Rove’s leadership means a ritual whereby people pretend to vote, and the Government pretends to count the votes, and the results are arranged in advance. The people are manipulated (by the Media, and by vote counters) to produce the desired results.
Oops, I’m sounding cynical.
Bob in HI
Hi Ian. thanks for this. I honestly was wondering why Burma was such a mess, and what were the dynamics behind a government who won’t even help it’s own people or try to employ Shock Doctrine to them after natural disasters. This reminds me of the latest article I read, today, from Noam Chomsky.
I studied Burma in school, a bazillion years ago, and what a beautiful culture they have/are. This is sad news to me.
Thanks again!
only missing ‘might have gained’, after “military” …
if Bush had pulled a coupFor all the destruction perpetrated and maybe to be perpetrated before Jan. 2009, feels like one to me. A regime never an administration. And for the the little successful Congressional pushback. And the military code — like a good soldier even if those at the top are awesomely incompetent, take your orders, and maybe pop off when you finally resign, and MSM will give you a few minutes of air time.
ooops… meant to use quotes….sorry
This is another version of a gated community, isn’t it?
China won’t help with Darfur either. China gets stronger. China playing counterpoint (with Iran) to U.S. in terms of Israel coming up. What will happen then?
If regimes weren’t so paranoid about U.S. imperialism, I wonder if the helicopters would have been more welcome with aid. Clearly, the leaders consider lives of their people expendable. Yeah, to protect their own necks. Don’t do the right thing. (Kinda like Congress and FISA, too?)
I heard about the extensive use of torture in India now, too.
I wouldn’t be surprised about India. For all that India’s a democracy, it’s vastly corrupt and entire provinces are virtually in revolt at any given time. It’s something you don’t hear much about.
Awesome post, Ian.
Brilliant as always.
There’s another way for Burma to change, too: the Burmese people rise up and overthrow their generals, swarming in a bloody, hopeless tide over the razor-topped walls of their compounds and hacking them limb from limb with machetes.
This is a non-optimal outcome (a technical term for a violent human tragedy). What you end up with then is an efficient, detached gang of thugs being replaced with violent ideologically-driven thugs. These thugs either morph into the prior regime and become effficient, or the inefficiencies allow for a generation to grow up under a crumbling governmental machine, and be replaced by pragmatists.
Either way you’re looking at a bloodbath, followed by another dictatorship (possibly bloodier), followed by socioeconomic collapse, and a generation passing before there’s a chance of establishing a government that is something other than a kleptocracy.
If the U.S. had an actual foreign policy, we could help lead places like Burma out of the darkness, although like South Africa they have to be ready to do so. Instead of curse we have a corporate kleptocracy trying to build an oligarchy with the help of a wholly-owned media propaganda machine. Basically the media is showing us a fictional tale of democracy while (not very far) behind the scenes the wealthy and powerful are securing a permanent hold on power. Throw in a corporatized, for-profit prison system (yes, the profit motive applied to jailing your neighbor), a corporatized for-profit military system (the profit motive applied to foreign policy), and the burgeoning technology of a ubiquitous police state, and Burma’s generals look like pikers…
Hmmm.. I used the phrase “instead of curse” rather than “instead of course.” However subconsciously I did it, I actually prefer the result.
An excellent anaylsis, on numerous levels, Al. And ‘of curse’ encapsulates so much of all the ‘truths’ in your anaylsis as to become almost a short-hand description of the human ‘predicament’ you’ve so well delineated …
Agree… “curse: was on point.
You write of the plutocracy. I am eager to read Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, This Land is Their Land…:
Thanks Ian for this post; you nailed it when you wrote “When we fail to deal with our own problems we become incapable of helping others with theirs.”
Of course, there will be those that shout ‘protectionism’ at such a thought but the saying ‘lead by example’ still holds.
Thanks for bringing this issue to light.
A few points come to mind:
•For many decades now Thailand has been dealing with unstable states (Cambodia and Burma) on one or the other of its borders. While one would think the Thai government would have a stake in improving the stability of those states to the point where refugee camps become unnecessary, it is also true that both of these unstable states are providing cheap labour in Thailand
•the pipeline to Thailand is certainly a vulnerable point of trade.
•there is concern about what amounts to Balkanization with the fall of the generals. Could Aung Sun Suu Kyi hold it together? There are many who have their doubts. In either case, it seems to me, the Chinese win. They are winning with resource extraction now under the generals (as is Thailand) and they would certainly win if the Burmese state did not hold together after the fall of the generals.
In all of this, one thing is historically certain – the generals will fall. Along with everybody but the generals themselves, we would much prefer that to be sooner rather than later. One of the things many of the exiled Burmese have already been doing is preparing for that moment with the development of much-needed support and transition policy.