Posted on 10/02/2007 3:09:12 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
As protests spiral into chaos and bloodshed inside Burma, the country's giant neighbor, China, looks on with concern, worrying about a total meltdown on their borders, which could spread instability across its frontiers. After saying nothing for weeks, its senior leadership calls on the Burmese junta to act wisely, yet does not condemn their brutal crackdown or support the Burmese pro-democracy movement.
But while the world has focused on how China abets the Burmese generals, in recent years the policies of India, the world's largest democracy, could be described in exactly the same way, and are just as craven. These days, senior Indian officials buy up Burma's resources, invite the junta leaders on state visits, and even sell the Burmese military arms. As Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee recently said, according to the BBC according to the BBC, "We have strategic and economic interests to protect in Burma. It is up to the Burmese people to struggle for democracy, it is their issue." (By contrast, one of Burma's smaller neighbors, Singapore, said it was "deeply troubled" by the crisis.)
The last time Burma erupted in protest, India's position was far different. In 1988, many Indian officials expressed open support for the Burmese pro-democracy movement; Aung San Suu Kyi once lived in India, where her mother had been Burma's ambassador to Delhi. The Indian embassy in Rangoon helped protect demonstrators. In the '80s and early 1990s, India sponsored UN resolutions on Burma and provided refuge to exiled Burmese activists, where they set up NGOs like Mizzima News, which has proven essential to covering the recent protests inside Burma. Former Indian defense minister George Fernandes offered high profile backing for Burmese democracy advocates, plastering a picture of Aung San Suu Kyi to the wall of his official residence and frequently inviting exiled Burmese leaders into his home.
But over the past decade, India has done a 180-degree turn. As India's northeast has disintegrated into a hotbed of insurgency, the Indian army has become more concerned about weapons and militants entering the region along the porous, 900-mile-long Burma frontier. The Indian armed forces also worries that China may be building bases in southern Burma, part of a possible Chinese plan to extend its naval reach farther outside its near neighborhood, threatening India's navy, considered the best in the region. So, the Indians have run joint patrols with Burmese soldiers. Far more shocking, according to the Christian Science Monitor India has sold Burma tanks, helicopters, and artillery guns, among other weapons. This although the Burmese military primarily trains guns on its own people, whether protestors in Rangoon or ethnic minority groups in eastern Burma, where each year brings a new scorched-earth offensive and there are now over 600,000 internally displaced people.
At the same time, as India's economy booms and it watches China gobble up oil and gas deals around the globe, Indian leaders covet Burma's petroleum riches, which will become even more internationally important as mature fields in the Middle East decline. (Burma may have as much as 300 billion cubic meters of gas, and India itself has few domestic sources of petroleum.) India is building a network of road links to Burma, and trying to get Burma to agree to a pipeline to northeastern India. Showing its interest, in 2004 India hosted thuggish junta chief Than Shwe for a lavish state visit to India, the first by any Burmese leader in 12 years. "India and not China should be getting this gas. It is vital for the economy of eastern India," Nazib Arif, the former secretary of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, said.
Even during last week's protests India's Petroleum Minister traveled to Burma to sign production-sharing contracts, publicly showing that the demonstrations would not stop the India-Burma relationship. While the petroleum minister visited, a senior Indian official told the BBC: "We have no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Burma," a line that echoed China's position.
Yet some Indian opinion leaders are beginning to question this unthinking support. Unlike an authoritarian state like China, India will never be able to provide the same level of blanket assistance for Burma, without criticism back in Delhi, at the United Nations, and from India's new partner, the United States, which worries about Delhi's relationship with rogues like Burma and Iran. Perhaps recognizing this, the Burmese generals still have favored Chinese oil and gas companies over their Indian competitors, inking larger deals with China.
Some Indians also realize that, if Delhi is going to compete with Beijing, it will have to emphasize its brand as the world's biggest democracy. India "should have sympathy on the Burmese people and take the initiative to pressure the military government to release political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi," Nirmala Deshpande, an Indian MP, told The Irrawaddy magazine last week. And The Hindu, one of India's most prominent newspapers, last week editorialized that in "this difficult struggle [the Burmese people] need every ounce of the world's support, moral as well as material." From the world's biggest democracy, it appears, they are likely to get neither.
I helped a friend move this past Saturday. Happened to drive by the Indian embassy. There were a bunch of Burmese protestors there.
Just sitting here waiting for a meltdown of the masses in China.
Can’t wait to see a new Boxer rebellion hit china any minute now.
When there is talk-based inaction from the West, and an unchecked China to the East, you really can't blame India for the mess in Burma.
India did try, mind you, in the late '80s. All that happened was International impotence that allowed the Junta to strengthen its roots, and give China deep inroad access into Burma, from whence to contain India.
It was upon this realisation that India changed policy. Lessons learnt. Too bad the author, and others, don't get this simple fact.
I am going to ask Risa what she knows of all this...
Joe, thanks for posting this thread. You can really boost attention to threads you post by putting some relevant keywords up. Just saying.
Two good blog articles at the link below showing how U.S. foreign policy is being screwed by Dems.
My thanks to pandoraou812 for bringing it to my attention.
TE, I couldn’t get a hold of Risa but she has much interest in Burma. Thanks for the link, I am going to send it to her. ~Pandy~
You gave me that link, silly. Didn’t you see my accreditation? ;^)
Oh I did..I’m sorry my mind is straying as Sassy won’t go to bed. lol ~Pandy~
ping
Just as US is having trouble of having to decide whether to be pro-democracy or pro-dictator. Dont you think you are being really hypocritical? US supports Pakistan, Saudi Arabia where military/dictators rule. Its supports them so much that its diplomats try to scuttle efforts by political leaders in Pakistan to restore democracy. Pakistan has ordered $5.1bn worth of military equipment during 2006, 90% of which is donated for free by US. Most of these weapons will be either used against India or will find their way to Taliban/AlQuaeda who use them on your US and NATO soldiers.
And here we have some Americans blaming India, looking down from their 'high moral pedestal'! /rolls eyes
Why? Because I didn't write a complete history of the world in my post? Don't be ridiculous.
Pakistan has ordered $5.1bn worth of military equipment during 2006, 90% of which is donated for free by US.
A lot of things are done by the U.S. I don't like. It doesn't change the facts of the article above does it? But I don't know what you have just said to be true. I have heard nothing about it. Please provide links to some corroborating articles and information about it. Thank you.
What has US EVER doneto support democracy in Pakistan?
Nothing. Zilch.
So US cant take the moral high ground here.
Who said it could? I don’t make excuses for the U.S. why are you making excuses for India? “You’re worse than me!” Is that your ethical foundation?
let’s put this in a SE Asian perspective, I am not Thai, I am American, so don’t blast me, this is just what I have observed. Over the last 17 years, having listened in on many conversations that included dialogue about Indians, I have heard that most Thais consider Indians to be arrogant, rude, greedy people that put their own profit above all else. The tone of this article is like that, The Indian gov’t is looking out for number one, and nothing else matters to them, let’s not take it to a personal level.
generals in Pakistan will alway have their AAA:
America
Atomics
ALLAH!!!11
This mess in burma can only be cleaned up with the whole world on the same page.
You have a point there. However it is only a point in context of having left the substance of the article and refocused on my comments.
Initially you forgot what the US is doing in Pakistan and thought you represent the moral high ground.
I didn't forget any such thing. I admitted to no knowledge of the arms transfers alleged by An Indian and asked for corroboration. So far none of the three of you have provided any.
What are you refering to when you talk about India's trouble in emulating Uncle Sam or the Dragon? Both their foreign policies are dictated by what is good for them after a tried and tested attempt to "adopt the moral high ground".
China has tried and tested an attempt to "adopt the moral high ground?" When? Where? For all its faults I think the U.S. can certainly submit a record on that score. Now, let's go back to the article and see if India has done so recently. ...
As Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee recently said, according to the BBC according to the BBC, "We have strategic and economic interests to protect in Burma. It is up to the Burmese people to struggle for democracy, it is their issue."Showing its interest, in 2004 India hosted thuggish junta chief Than Shwe for a lavish state visit to India, the first by any Burmese leader in 12 years. "India and not China should be getting this gas. It is vital for the economy of eastern India," Nazib Arif, the former secretary of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, said.
Even during last week's protests India's Petroleum Minister traveled to Burma to sign production-sharing contracts, publicly showing that the demonstrations would not stop the India-Burma relationship. While the petroleum minister visited, a senior Indian official told the BBC: "We have no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Burma," a line that echoed China's position.
I think India has had a great deal of support from the U.S. over the years in it's struggle with Pakistan. We certainly haven't interfered in any significant way that I'm aware of. We are fighting a global war on Islamo fascism which ought to benefit India and the rest of the world but we aren't getting a lot of whole hearted help with that. The criticism that we're not in Pakistan installing a democracy is pretty lame. We're doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may have to do it in Pakistan too after we deal with Iran. Apparently we can't expect India to improve things in Burma so I guess we'll have to come fix that too. Are there any other problems in your region you'd like us to fix for you? I don't expect you'll want to lend a hand when it comes to dealing with China? Do you want us to come over and wipe everybody's butt each day too?
In your rush to criticize the U.S. by jumping on my first little comment you have all conveniently ignored the harsh criticism of the U.S. that was in it.
Barring large sums of money and advanced, India-specific weaponry (tell me, those Sidewinders and F-16s are for the Taliban Air Force?), radars, anti-ship missiles, amongst other things, preventing India from completely defeating Pakistan during past encounters by introducing diplomatic pressures whenever there was a conflict, in support of Pakistan (oh, that emboldened them rather well in letting them create and aid the Taliban and Al Qaeda, now coming back to bite). That sort of support also allowed time for China to creep into the equation.
Back in the 1971 War, when Bangladesh was being liberated, the US sent in mighty "help" by sending their USS Enterprise carrier in a threatening posture against India. Not that it affected the war in any way (the Soviets sent their nuke subs to trail the carrier group, which forced the carrier to back off from the Bay of Bengal). India was installing a democracy in Bangladesh (and succeeded) when all that the US could do was send a carrier group in support of is greatest non-Nato ally, Pakistan. Thankfully for Bangladesh, the plot failed miserably.
For all its faults I think the U.S. can certainly submit a record on that score. Now, let's go back to the article and see if India has done so recently.
Yeah, right. By preventing US companies from making "new" investments and profits in Burma, all the while, and delibrately, introducing specific clauses to allow existing American operations to continue without let or hindrance. Moral high-ground indeed. Want more info? Read up on the interests Unocal and Chevron have in Burma.
All that the US (or for that matter, anyone, including India) has done regarding the recent crisis is talk.
We all know, talk... is cheap.
Apparently we can't expect India to improve things in Burma so I guess we'll have to come fix that too.
Check reports on Burma immediately after the '88 rebellion that was crushed. India was training and sending into Burma pro-democracy paramilitaries for a while, for which NO American or European / Russian aid appeared. This was not something India could have done alone, but no one else stepped up to the plate. (BTW, Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in India).
Are there any other problems in your region you'd like us to fix for you?
Yeah, Kashmir. America can help by not aiding Pakistan, or by not failing to declare it a terrorist state. You wanted Indian troops in Iraq? You're forgetting how tied down India is, along Kashmir's borders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.