Burma; A Country Forgotten

"The value systems of those with access to power and of those far removed from such access cannot be the same. The viewpoint of the privileged is unlike that of the underprivileged"- Aung San Suu Kyi

            When one is asked 'what are the worst dictatorships in the world currently?', most would give the usual answers; North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and others alike. Rarely do we hear about the country of Burma. Burma is a country roughly the size of California and holds about 55 million people. It's people have lived under the harsh and oppressive rule of the military junta since 1962 when General Ne Win led a military coup against the Democratic government under U Thant. The goal of the military was to lead Burma onto a path of socialism, leading to the nationalization of almost all industries from business, to media, to production. This ushered in an era of untold pain, as millions were left in poverty, political rights were suppressed, and more suffered from terrifying living conditions.

Auun San Suu Kyi addressing a large crowd in 1988

              It wasn't until 1988 that a large scale protest shook the country, led by the charismatic and widely popular leader of the National League of Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, that many of the authoritarian government's crimes came to light. Thousands were reported to have been killed, as government thugs and security forces fired tear gas, bullets and applied other forms of deadly force to subdue the protesters. For the first time this country was thrown into the international spotlight, as people around the world denounced the government under the military junta, and much needed international aid was cut off to Burma, only worsening the quality of life for the citizens of Burma.

             Shortly after this protest, Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest, and has remained there ever since. Her party, the National League of Democracy had won the election held in 1990, but never received the right to govern from the military junta. International election monitors objected to the results, but little to no action was taken against the government. This has disenfranchised those who aspire to dispose of the military junta, as the government has shown that it has no plans of relinquishing power anytime soon.

             While millions in Burma starve, lack adequate shelter, and are stripped of their rights, the military junta under the current leader Than Shwe live in luxury, with huge palaces and mansions, making the life of a common person in Burma seem like the life of a common rodent. The military is so disconnected from it's people, that when a huge cyclone devastated the country a few years ago, Than Shwe actually halted aid to regions that were known to be anti government, leaving countless numbers of people to be left for dead.

Than Shwe being honored by the military junta

           The most recent attempt by the people to stage a revolution came 20 years after the 1988 revolution, which led millions of people into the streets. It all started when the highly admired class of monks in the country began to look at the conditions of their country and began to speak out. Burma is a country that has a high number of devout Buddhists. The monks are seen in an almost god like way, as they are the most highly respected members of Burmese society. What makes the monks speaking out against the government so important is the fact that monks typically are forbidden by their religion to be politically active in anyway. A virtue of monks around the world is to not get into the politics of their country, so when they started speaking out, it was evident that there were clear abuses of human rights and widespread humanitarian problems that the monks could no longer ignore. As one monk says in the documentary "Burma VJ", "It is not in our interest to get involved in the affairs of the government, but once injustices such as widespread disease, poverty, starvation and direct violence are pressed upon our people, it is our job as virtuous and moral members to speak out against such tragedy. We have vowed to follow this path of righteousness, and it is our duty to aid our common man as monks".

Monks flood the streets, inciting mass protests across Burma

              It is estimated that within the first week of the protests, over 2 million people joined the monks, and almost 400,000 of them were the monks themselves. Quickly the government came into suppress the riots, sending out the army to detain, injure and kill protesters marching through the streets. The monks sought to protect the people, using themselves as human shields to ensure the army wouldn't fire. Because monks are so widely respected, if the army were to injure or kill one of the monks, the country's reaction would be one of utter shock and disgust, making matters only worse. On top of this, even though the soldiers themselves are sworn to uphold the government (and are paid quite lavishly to do so, and if not they are intimidated through threats of death to them or their families), many of them themselves are buddhists, and see shooting or hurting a monk as blasphemous.

Security forces approaching protesters in the 2008 uprising

              The country went into lock down, as strict martial law was enacted, and groups of more than 3 people on the streets was deemed illegal. A curfew was set, and people could not be out on the streets past 7 pm. Despite all these threats and the mounting violence, people still protested and the numbers grew to millions. Three weeks into the protests, the military junta had finally had enough. At the end of a long day of protests, the government, which has posted large megaphones and speakers on each street corner, ominously sent out threats of violence against the protesters if they were to come out the next day and protest. 
              In defiance the protesters still came out in just as large of numbers and this was when it all fell apart. The army led a full assault on protesters, and it is said over 2000 people died in that single day. With the relentless assault, people were forced to flee for cover, and the military seemed to have won the battle, but the war was not over. The military wanted to send a message to the protesters as to the extremes it would go to ensure their grip on power, and to portray their complete disregard for the lives of their citizens.

An amateur journalist lies shot as other protesters run from advancing forces

               Earlier during the first week and a half of protests, about 140 monks had gone missing from a monastery said to have housed many of the dissident monks. Surely enough, the bodies of the monks eerily began showing up one by one, day after day along one of the large rivers that run through Burma. This was done by the government to show their viciousness and their contempt, as even the most highly respected members of society, the holiest and most virtuous of men would not receive mercy from the brutal rule of Than Shwe and the military.      

                While this event was covered, it is not seen with the amount of importance as an uprising in let's say Iran or Egypt has been seen. Burma, a country that has long been isolated from the international community, is not viewed as being a country of strategic importance to the west and other nations. It's lack of resources, unappealing geographic position, and inability to offer anything worth of value to the modern world, leaves the dilemma of Burma's harsh military rule ignored. It's a tragic story of the inability for us in the west to see the importance of protecting human dignity, fighting against tyranny, and upholding a sense of humility, even if there is no profit for us in the end. 

                 Why is it that everything we do must be profitable? Is it not profitable enough to say that we fought the good fight and that we freed a country of impoverished people from a brutal dictator? Or is it that it's value can't be measured on some company's spreadsheet that hinders us from intervening? These are all moral questions we should ask ourselves as we look to fight against the injustices of the world. What needs to be happen for us to see Burma as a country that is in need of not dire assistance, but dire intervention? Maybe the Burmese should find some oil somewhere.

Signing out- John Thomas

Sleeping With The Devil; How We're Led To Believe Their Wealth Benefits Us (The Rich's Riches Make the Poor Poorer)

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country" - Thomas Jefferson 

           As we enter this new era filled with challenges to the middle class such as declining wages, limited resources and widening wealth disparity, few in Washington are actually fighting to fix what is actually causing these social problems. With movements like the Tea Party that call for reductions in the size of the government, and the Republicans espouse their purely anti poor, pro-corporation standpoint, there is only so much the Democrats and pragmatic idealists can do to battle such a wave of amoral and corrupt values. We live in a country where the wages of middle class families have actually declined over the past 10 years, while the top 1% in fiscal terms have actually increased their riches by one quarter of a million dollars per year. I don't know about you, but this seems a lot less like a government of the people, for the people, and more like for the wealthy, and by the wealthy.

           It's a known fact that there is such a disparity in wealth between the what was middle class and the now glutton filled upper class but it seems like nobody is fighting the good fight. While there are many campaigns to fight against this sort of injustice, why is it that republicans still somehow, whether effectively or not, are able to eclipse the public debate by crying the old "socialism", "class warfare", "free market" sentiments, while simultaneously pretending to be working for the interest of everybody. Last time I checked, the bottom 99% seems a lot more like everybody and the top 1% seems more like, well, the top 1%.
          Trickle down economics as former president Ronald Reagan called it was a complete and utter fabrication, a promotion of free market and capitalist ideals while merely being just a facade to give to the rich and steal from the poor. The only thing that is quote unquote "trickled down" to the bottom 95% of us is the regurgitated and hardly digested goods the rich accidentally spill, and even then they still get to decide what we should or shouldn't have.

            In Wisconsin, republican Governor Walker and his team of anti-union, anti-worker staffers are working tirelessly at silencing mass organization and collective bargaining by effectively putting us back into the age of monopolistic and authoritative industries. These industries gave absolutely no rights or fair working conditions to their employees in the first decade of the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt led the fight against these corporations as to not let them sway the government and eventually struck down corporation's right in favor of the people. This is the kind of leadership we need, not the kind that merely seeks to enhance it's own political agenda and fortunes by enriching the rich and taking from the poor.

            Look at the graph to the left. The share of capital income earned by the top 1% since the 1980's has gone up about 20%, while the bottom 80% of American's wealth have actually gone down about 15%. This is the reality of today's America. We live in a society in which people are so manipulated by these economic conservatives that they actually believe that those looking to destroy the middle and lower class are actually trying to help the lower and middle class. If the dollar bills these republicans and tea partiers were receiving could be marked based on income, you'd see that most of these bills are probably stamped with some corporation's logo on the back.

           And the age old cry of class warfare? That must be a joke. The only war being waged is against the impoverished masses, whether it's congressman Paul Ryan's incessant attacks on Medicaid, the number 1 provider of health care for the poor, or the idea that giving tax breaks to corporations and billionaires will actually produce wealth, is a prime example of the paradox Americans live in. How is it, that Paul Ryan, can say "We should cut $800,000,000,000 from Medicaid", a service that cures and prevents illnesses for the poor, but then say "We should give $800,000,000,000 to the top 2% because they are our 'economic engines of growth'". I'm sorry, but this is deplorable, and if you are any bit a decent person, you would understand that this type of behavior is just not acceptable. It's a value that is hardly a value, and is more of a dogmatic attack on the government for his own political gain, while simultaneously pushing down the poor and lifting the rich even higher. It's the ironic sentiment that we as Americans can't afford health care, we can't afford to fix infrastructure, we can't afford to send our children to school, yet we can afford to give billions in tax breaks to corporations and individuals. These entities end up using their high priced lawyers to figure out the best tax loopholes, making the taxes that they are already supposed to be paying avoidable.
          Just the issue alone that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations rights to 'freedom of speech' by allowing them to donate to political campaigns without disclosure is a testament to the unlimited power of the rich. The fact that in some statesm union organizations, the groups that lobby for the average worker in America aren't allowed to donate money to political campaigns, yet corporations filled with billionaire C.E.O's are allowed to donate not only unlimited funds, but don't even have to disclose the amount or to whom they donate to is in it's own right class warfare. It's the average American who is scammed out of his political voice in favor of the richest American. This way the corporations and the rich can move their money overseas, sell off America jobs to foreign countries, evade taxes, and on top of it, elect whichever politician they deem desirable by funding that candidate endlessly. Money is what wins in this country, not democracy, or liberty, or justice, just money.

          This is not an issue of the cleverly coined term 'class warfare', it is more of an issue of fairness. We all have to make sacrifices and give a little bit to get this country back on track, and we shouldn't be starting from the bottom up. It doesn't make any sense to attack the bottom rung of the ladder if you want to solve the problems we face today. Every single one of us collectively, whether you are Donald Trump or Joe Schmoe, we all have to give a little bit. Whether or not Donald pays more or Schmoe pays more is purely trivial. I know one thing for sure, Donald should definitely not be receiving any breaks before Schmoe should. 
          Our priorities and our values have been left in the hands of the wealthy who can afford the lobbyists and the face time needed with the politicians that are sworn to serve the people. We need to understand that if we want to move forward, we cannot put the weight of our budget problems on the backs of the poor. We can't put it on the backs of those who barely have legs to stand on. We have to start with those who can afford it, or at least make it that all who live in this country pitch in their part to get our country moving forward. I'm sorry Paul Ryan, this is 2011, not 1911; monopolies and Mr. Money bags aren't what need to be defended; it's the struggling mother of three who can't afford her mortgage because some C.E.O. has decided to cut costs by laying off his workers, or the financier at Wall Street who decided to sell off her mortgage in a risky investment. It's time to work towards a stronger middle class and not a stronger corporate state. This is more like the United Corporations of America than it is the United States of America. 
          Until we understand that this country's economic backbone is us, the struggling mother, the hard working college student, the back breaking laborer and not the playboy billionaire, we'll be left to be subjugated by the aristocracy that we have been led to believe is actually good for us. If we're going to say that these tax breaks and loopholes are actually beneficial, then I say Phillip Morris should go back to saying their product is beneficial for us too. I mean, both don't look too bad in the short term, right? But it's the cancer that will eventually kill us, maybe not today, but one day. Let's bring back the middle class the way we've brought up the upper class and let's do it in the right way this time. 

Signing Out- John Thomas 

Defending The Weak and Fighting Injustice; When It's Convenient

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it."- John F. Kennedy

         We've heard presidents all throughout history espouse this idea that America and the world has a moral obligation to fight the evils that haunt our civilizations, from genocide, to oppression, to famine, to corruption. George H.W. Bush is quoted as saying "Yes, the United States bears a major share of leadership in this effort. Among the nations of the world, only the United States of America has both the moral standing and the means to back it up. We're the only nation on this Earth that could assemble the forces of peace. This is the burden of leadership and the strength that has made America the beacon of freedom in a searching world". Bill Clinton echoes the same sentiment- 'We cannot build our own future without helping others to build theirs". Now, George W. Bush- "America is a Nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman". Anybody who has any reading comprehension skills can tell you, all of these quotes have a common theme. It's the idea that America, has the moral obligation to help defend the weak against tyranny, fight oppression abroad, battle injustice, and further enhance freedom around the world, not only for the sake of humanity, but for our own future. It sounds pretty idealistic and if somebody had read only what the presidents listed here said and what others in leadership positions in America have said about our duty to uphold this kind of moral righteousness and ideal of leadership, they would probably say these American leaders are some pretty noble guys. I just want to dissect this a little bit for my own research, and answer a few questions. When is it necessary to intervene to protect these ideals? When have we and when haven't we? What were the circumstances that surrounded these interventions and the variables that either prevented us or enabled us to deploy such complicated military missions to subdue our enemies and lift our moral fiber?

         As most of the world knows at this point, America has recently intervened in Libya, a largely Arabic nation that happens to hold the largest oil reserves in the continent of Africa. It's leader is Muammar Gaddafi, a vicious tyrant who was implicated and convicted in the Pan Am airline flight 103 bombing in 1988, killing 259 people on board and another 11 on the ground. His oppressive rule and terrorist past leads me to believe he is a ruler well worth taking out. His people live under an oppressive regime with virtually no political rights, and his government is not scared of using brutal force to subdue any political unrest. After the political upheaval and protests began, a rebel militia group formed to defend the civilians against Libyan aggression and to take out Gaddafi's government. After taking several key cities and town, opposition forces attempted to gain more ground and headed towards Tripoli. From there the Libyan governments began using their air force to severely weaken the opposition, setting them back and killing a number of rebel fighters and civilians. 
        With calls from the international community, various governments, human rights organizations and the rebel fighters themselves, the United Nations passed resolution 1973, which authorized member states of the UN to protect the civilians and rebel fighters from Libyan air strikes through the use of military measures. This seems to me to be one of the first times in recent years we as Americans have used our military force in a way that has actually defended freedom, fought injustice and preserved humanity. With this being said, this seems to be a 'just' war, but with all the extenuating circumstances like our involvement in two other Arab nations with which we are currently using massive military operations to further our own interests in, our domestic economy's own problems, political unrest as the growth in wealth disparity continue and protests rise up around the country, is it in our interests to intervene with all these other problems looming overhead? What makes Libya of such dire importance that America and the rest of the world have no other obligation but to intervene? Barack Obama in his speech said "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.". This was very clever. His use of metaphor, comparing Benghazi to a populated and sophisticated city like Charlotte, North Carolina, is a way to conjure up an image of such an attack to a town like that right in our backyard. He has successfully created this mental bridge in which we are to view the Libyan people and cities as citizens and cities like our own, and therefore, it is our undeniable duty to defend against such injustice and slaughter.

           What I'm going to say right now is that this is morally right and I wish our country would do this more often. Fighting on the behalf of democracy, helping delegitimize dictatorships, and promote liberty and freedom for all. Instead of justifying baseless wars on such loosely organized and gathered intelligence like America did with Iraq, we are instead doing something which actually holds some merit when it comes to our professed beliefs of defending the weak and fighting injustice. America's allegations that Saddam had attempted to obtain enriched uranium from Africa and the minute probability of weapons of mass destruction hidden in Saddam's factories was just an excuse to intervene in a sovereign nation for an array of special interests. 

A mass field of skulls in Cambodia

            But what about all the other world's problems America and everybody else so obliviously ignore? Darfur? Cambodia? The Armenian Massacre? These are just a few examples of governments that have not only endorsed, but carried out and encouraged the mass extermination of a certain race of people and virtually nothing was done or even talked about by the international community. What about oppressive regimes like Burma? Iran? Even Saudi Arabia, which has some of the worst human rights records against women and criminals, with beheading in the town square still a legitimate death penalty. Nobody is calling for the intervention of these countries. Nobody is crying for regime change and military operations to overthrow these terribly oppressive governments.

          It seems to me to be all circumstantial. Our interests lie here, so we go there. Libya has large oil reserves and also happens to be experiencing a humanitarian tragedy, so lets kill two birds with one stone. Darfur has a desert and a bunch of impoverished tribal societies, and a large scale genocide has wiped out thousands. The sectarian strife has become so potent that Darfur is spiraling into a failed state, but our interests do not lie there, for there is nothing to gain. Vietnam had the Vietcong, a communist revolutionary group bent on overthrowing the government and imposing communism. Our government had very strong interests to protect there; to contain the spread of communism around the world. When vicious ruler Pol Pot in Cambodia began slaughtering his own people which ended up resulting in 2 million left dead, the only country that intervened was Vietnam, which left a stalemate and the eventual occupation of Cambodia by Vietnamese forces. Nobody in the international community blinked an eye.

United Nation Peacekeeping Operation in Congo

         So what does this mean? Does this make us amoral and hypocrites? Are we wrong and are we just greedy, resource grabbing, imperialistic opportunists? Or are we merely choosing our battles wisely as to what will not benefit only us, but the world. In my opinion, I believe it's both. While I do believe there are those that are in this game to purely reap the benefits and rewards out of intervening and occupying a country, whether it's political power or economic power, there is also the underlying message that we do want to preserve freedom around the world and that for the sake of humanity have an innate and unyielding duty to fight these injustices. The only problem I have is America shouldn't tout freedom and democracy for all, then only fight the fights that are convenient to the shareholders and political forces. Don't veil greed and imperialism with the flag. Instead, we should be more pragmatic, objective, and real with our rhetoric. Our president is one who does not tout his patriotism, but rather his pragmatism and his diplomatic character. "It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.". Finally, some honesty.

Signing Out- John Thomas