After going from defeat to defeat on the periphery of world power and not satisfied with running treasury-busting deficits in pursuit of empire building against economically weak countries, Obama has embraced a policy of encirclement and provocations against China, the world’s second largest economy and the US’s most important creditor, and Russia, the European Union’s principle oil and gas provider and the world’s second most powerful nuclear weapons power.

This paper addresses the Obama regime’s highly irrational and world-threatening escalation of imperial militarism. We examine the global military, economic and domestic political context that gives rise to these policies. We then examine the multiple points of conflict and intervention in which Washington is engaged, from Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba and beyond. We will then analyze the rationale for military escalation against Russia and China as part of a new offensive moving beyond the Arab world (Syria, Libya) and in the face of the declining economic position of the EU and the US in the global economy. We will then outline the strategies of a declining empire, nurtured on perpetual wars, facing global economic decline, domestic discredit and a working population reeling from the long-term, large-scale dismantling of its basic social programs.

The Turn from Militarism in the Periphery to Global Military Confrontation

November 2011 is a moment of great historical import: Obama declared two major policy positions, both having tremendous strategic consequences affecting competing world powers.

Obama pronounced a policy of military encirclement of China based on stationing a maritime and aerial armada facing the Chinese coast – an overt policy designed to weaken and disrupt China’s access to raw materials and commercial and financial ties in Asia. Obama’s declaration that Asia is the priority region for US military expansion, base-building and economic alliances was directed against China, challenging Beijing in its own backyard. Obama’s iron fist policy statement, addressed to the Australian Parliament, was crystal clear in defining US imperial goals.

Our enduring interests in the region [Asia Pacific] demands our enduring presence in this region … The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay … As we end today’s wars [i.e. the defeats and retreats from Iraq and Afghanistan] … I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia Pacific a top priority … As a result, reduction in US defense spending will not … come at the expense of the Asia Pacific.¹

The precise nature of what Obama called our “presence and mission” was underlined by the new military agreement with Australia to dispatch warships, warplanes and 2500 marines to the northernmost city of Australia (Darwin) directed at China. Secretary of State Clinton has spent the better part of 2011 making highly provocative overtures to Asian countries that have maritime border conflicts with China. Clinton has forcibly injected the US into these disputes, encouraging and exacerbating the demands of Vietnam, Philippines, and Brunei in the South China Sea. Even more seriously, Washington is bolstering its military ties and sales with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, as well as increasing the presence of battleships, nuclear submarines and over-flights of war planes along China’s coastal waters. In line with the policy of military encirclement and provocation, the Obama-Clinton regime is promoting Asian multi-lateral trade agreements that exclude China and privilege US multi-national corporations, bankers and exporters, dubbed the “Trans-Pacific Partnership.” It currently includes mostly smaller countries, but Obama has hopes of enticing Japan and Canada to join …

Obama’s presence at the APEC meeting of East Asian leaders and his visit to Indonesia in November 2011 all revolve around efforts to secure US hegemony. Obama-Clinton hope to counter the relative decline of US economic links in the face of the geometrical growth of trade and investment ties between East Asia and China.

A most recent example of Obama-Clinton’s delusional, but destructive, efforts to deliberately disrupt China’s economic ties in Asia, is taking place in Myanmar (Burma). Clinton’s December 2011 visit to Myanmar was preceded by a decision by the Thein Sein regime to suspend a China Power Investment-funded dam project in the north of the country. According to official confidential documents released by WilkiLeaks the “Burmese NGO’s, which organized and led the campaign against the dam, were heavily funded by the US government.”² This and other provocative activity and Clinton’s speeches condemning Chinese “tied aid” pale in comparison with the long-term, large-scale interests which link Myanmar with China. China is Myanmar’s biggest trading partner and investor, including six other dam projects. Chinese companies are building new highways and rail lines across the country, opening southwestern China up for Burmese products and China is constructing oil pipelines and ports. There is a powerful dynamic of mutual economic interests that will not be disturbed by one dispute.³ Clinton’s critique of China’s billion-dollar investments in Myanmar’s infrastructure is one of the most bizarre in world history, coming in the aftermath of Washington’s brutal eight-year military presence in Iraq which destroyed $500 billion dollars of Iraqi infrastructure, according to Baghdad official estimates. Only a delusional administration could imagine that rhetorical flourishes, a three-day visit and the bankrolling of an NGO is an adequate counter-weight to deep economic ties linking Myanmar to China. The same delusional posture underlies the entire repertoire of policies informing the Obama regime’s efforts to displace China’s predominant role in Asia.

While any one policy adopted by the Obama regime does not, in itself, present an immediate threat to peace, the cumulative impact of all these policy pronouncements and the projections of military power add up to an all out comprehensive effort to isolate, intimidate and degrade China’s rise as a regional and global power. Military encirclement and alliances, exclusion of China in proposed regional economic associations, partisan intervention in regional maritime disputes and positioning technologically advanced warplanes, are all aimed to undermine China’s competitiveness and to compensate for US economic inferiority via closed political and economic networks.

Clearly White House military and economic moves and US Congressional anti-China demagogy are aimed at weakening China’s trading position and forcing its business-minded leaders into privileging US banking and business interests over and above their own enterprises. Pushed to its limits, Obama’s prioritizing a big military push could lead to a catastrophic rupture in US-Chinese economic relations. This would result in dire consequences, especially but not exclusively, on the US economy and particularly its financial system. China holds over $1.5 trillion dollars in US debt, mainly Treasury Notes, and each year purchases from $200 to $300 billion in new issues, a vital source in financing the US deficit. If Obama provokes a serious threat to China’s security interests and Beijing is forced to respond, it will not be military but economic retaliation: the sell-off of a few hundred billion dollars in T-notes and the curtailment of new purchases of US debt. The US deficit will skyrocket, its credit ratings will descend to ‘junk,’ and the financial system will ‘tremble onto collapse.’ Interest rates to attract new buyers of US debt will approach double digits. Chinese exports to the US will suffer and losses will incur due to the devaluation of the T-notes in Chinese hands. China has been diversifying its markets around the world and its huge domestic market could probably absorb most of what China loses abroad in the course of a pull-back from the US market.

While Obama strays across the Pacific to announce his military threats to China and strives to economically isolate China from the rest of Asia, the US economic presence is fast fading in what used to be its “backyard”: Quoting one Financial Times journalist, “China is the only show [in town] for Latin America.”⁴ China has displaced the US and the EU as Latin America’s principle trading partner; Beijing has poured billions in new investments and provides low interest loans.

China’s trade with India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and Vietnam is increasing at a far faster rate than that of the US. The US effort to build an imperial-centered security alliance in Asia is based on fragile economic foundations. Even Australia, the anchor and linchpin of the US military thrust in Asia, is heavily dependent on mineral exports to China. Any military interruption would send the Australian economy into a tailspin.

The US economy is in no condition to replace China as a market for Asian or Australian commodity and manufacturing exports. The Asian countries must be acutely aware that there is no future advantage in tying themselves to a declining, highly militarized, empire. Obama and Clinton deceive themselves if they think they can entice Asia into a long-term alliance. The Asian’s are simply using the Obama regime’s friendly overtures as a ‘tactical device,’ a negotiating ploy, to leverage better terms in securing maritime and territorial boundaries with China.

Washington is delusional if it believes that it can convince Asia to break long-term large-scale lucrative economic ties to China in order to join an exclusive economic association with such dubious prospects. Any ‘reorientation’ of Asia, from China to the US, would require more than the presence of an American naval and airborne armada pointed at China. It would require the total restructuring of the Asian countries’ economies, class structure, and political and military elite. The most powerful economic entrepreneurial groups in Asia have deep and growing ties with China/Hong Kong, especially among the dynamic transnational Chinese business elites in the region. A turn toward Washington entails a massive counter-revolution, which substitutes colonial ‘traders’ (compradors) for established entrepreneurs. A turn to the US would require a dictatorial elite willing to cut strategic trading and investment linkages, displacing millions of workers and professionals. As much as some US-trained Asian military officers, economists, and former Wall Street financiers and billionaires might seek to ‘balance’ a US military presence with Chinese economic power, they must realize that ultimately advantage resides in working out an Asian solution.

The age of Asian “comprador capitalists” willing to sell out national industry and sovereignty in exchange for privileged access to US markets is ancient history. Whatever the boundless enthusiasm for conspicuous consumerism and Western lifestyles, which Asia and China’s new rich mindlessly celebrate, whatever the embrace of inequalities and savage capitalist exploitation of labor, there is recognition that the past history of US and European dominance precluded the growth and enrichment of an indigenous bourgeoisie and middle class. The speeches and pronouncements of Obama and Clinton reek of nostalgia for a past of neo-colonial overseers and comprador collaborators – a mindless delusion. Their attempts at political realism, in finally recognizing Asia as the economic pivot of the present world order, takes a bizarre turn in imagining that military posturing and projections of armed force will reduce China to a marginal player in the region.

Obama’s Escalation of Confrontation with Russia

The Obama regime has launched a major frontal military thrust on Russia’s borders. The US has moved forward missile sites and Air Force bases in Poland, Rumania, Turkey, Spain, Czech Republic and Bulgaria: Patriot PAC-3 anti-aircraft missile complexes in Poland; advanced radar AN/TPY-2 in Turkey; and several missile (SM-3 IA) loaded warships in Spain are among the prominent weapons encircling Russia, most only minutes away from it strategic heartland. Secondly, the Obama regime has mounted an all-out effort to secure and expand US military bases in Central Asia among former Soviet republics. Thirdly, Washington, via NATO, has launched major economic and military operations against Russia’s major trading partners in North Africa and the Middle East. The NATO war against Libya, which ousted the Gaddafi regime, has paralyzed or nullified multi-billion dollar Russian oil and gas investments, arms sales and substituted a NATO puppet for the former Russia-friendly regime.

The UN-NATO economic sanctions and US-Israeli clandestine terrorist activity aimed at Iran has undermined Russia’s lucrative billion-dollar nuclear trade and joint oil ventures. NATO, including Turkey, backed by the Gulf monarchical dictatorships, has implemented harsh sanctions and funded terrorist assaults on Syria, Russia’s last remaining ally in the region and where it has a sole naval facility (Tartus) on the Mediterranean Sea. Russia’s previous collaboration with NATO in weakening its own economic and security position is a product of the monumental misreading of NATO and especially Obama’s imperial policies. Russian President Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mistakenly assumed (like Gorbachev and Yeltsin before them) that backing US-NATO policies against Russia’s trading partners would result in some sort of “reciprocity”: US dismantling its offensive “missile shield” on its frontiers and support for Russia’s admission into the World Trade Organization. Medvedev, following his liberal pro-western illusions, fell into line and backed US-Israeli sanctions against Iran, believing the tales of a “nuclear weapons program.” Then Lavrov fell for the NATO line of “no fly zones to protect Libyan civilian lives” and voted in favor, only to feebly “protest,” much too late, that NATO was “exceeding its mandate” by bombing Libya into the Middle Ages and installing a pro-NATO puppet regime of rogues and fundamentalists. Finally when the US aimed a cleaver at Russia’s heartland by pushing ahead with an all-out effort to install missile launch sites 5 minutes by air from Moscow while organizing mass and armed assaults on Syria, did the Medvedev-Lavrov duet awake from its stupor and oppose UN sanctions. Medvedev threatened to abandon the nuclear missile reduction treaty (START) and to place medium-range missiles with 5 minute launch-time from Berlin, Paris and London.

Medvedev-Lavrov’s policy of consolidation and co-operation based on Obama’s rhetoric of “resetting relations” invited aggressive empire building: Each capitulation led to a further aggression. As a result, Russia is surrounded by missiles on its western frontier; it has suffered losses among its major trading partners in the Middle East and faces US bases in southwest and Central Asia.

Belatedly Russian officials have moved to replace the delusional Medvedev for the realist Putin, as next President. This shift to a political realist has predictably evoked a wave of hostility toward Putin in all the Western media. Obama’s aggressive policy to isolate Russia by undermining independent regimes has, however, not affected Russia’s status as a nuclear weapons power. It has only heightened tensions in Europe and perhaps ended any future chance of peaceful nuclear weapons reduction or efforts to secure a UN Security Council consensus on issues of peaceful conflict resolution. Washington, under Obama-Clinton, has turned Russia from a pliant client to a major adversary.

Putin looks to deepening and expanding ties with the East, namely China, in the face of threats from the West. The combination of Russian advanced weapons technology and energy resources and Chinese dynamic manufacturing and industrial growth are more than a match for crisis-ridden EU-USA economies wallowing in stagnation.

Obama’s military confrontation toward Russia will greatly prejudice access to Russian raw materials and definitively foreclose any long-term strategic security agreement, which would be useful in lowering the deficit and reviving the US economy.

Between Realism and Delusion: Obama’s Strategic Realignment

Obama’s recognition that the present and future center of political and economic power is moving inexorably to Asia, was a flash of political realism. After a lost decade of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in military adventures on the margins and periphery of world politics, Washington has finally discovered that is not where the fate of nations, especially Great Powers, will be decided, except in a negative sense – of bleeding resources over lost causes. Obama’s new realism and priorities apparently are now focused on Southeast and Northeast Asia, where dynamic economies flourish, markets are growing at a double digit rate, investors are ploughing tens of billions in productive activity and trade is expanding at three times the rate of the US and the EU.

But Obama’s ‘New Realism’ is blighted by entirely delusional assumptions, which undermine any serious effort to realign US policy.

In the first place Obama’s effort to ‘enter’ into Asia is via a military build-up and not through a sharpening and upgrading of US economic competitiveness. What does the US produce for the Asian countries that will enhance its market share? Apart from arms, airplanes and agriculture, the US has few competitive industries. The US would have to comprehensively re-orient its economy, upgrade skilled labor, and transfer billions from “security” and militarism to applied innovations. But Obama works within the current military-Zionist-financial complex: He knows no other and is incapable of breaking with it.

Second, Obama-Clinton operate under the delusion that the US can exclude China or minimize its role in Asia, a policy that is undercut by the huge and growing investment and presence of all the major US multi-national corporations in China, who use it as an export platform to Asia and the rest of the world.

The US military build-up and policy of intimidation will only force China to downgrade its role as creditor financing the US debt, a policy China can pursue because the US market, while still important, is declining, as China expands its presence in its domestic, Asian, Latin American and European markets.

What once appeared to be New Realism is now revealed to be the recycling of Old Delusions: the notion that the US can return to being the supreme Pacific Power it was after World War Two. The US attempts to return to Pacific dominance under Obama-Clinton with a crippled economy, with the overhang of an over-militarized economy, and with major strategic handicaps. Over the past decade the United States foreign policy has been at the beck and call of Israel’s fifth column (the Israel “lobby”). The entire US political class is devoid of common, practical sense and national purpose. They are immersed in troglodyte debates over “indefinite detentions” and “mass immigrant expulsions”. Worse, all are on the payrolls of private corporations who sell in the US and invest in China.

Why would Obama abjure costly wars in the unprofitable periphery and then promote the same military metaphysics at the dynamic center of the world economic universe? Does Barack Obama and his advisers believe he is the Second Coming of Admiral Commodore Perry, whose 19th century warships and blockades forced Asia open to Western trade? Does he believe that military alliances will be the first stage to a subsequent period of privileged economic entry?

Does Obama believe that his regime can blockade China, as Washington did to Japan in the lead up to World War Two? It’s too late. China is much more central to the world economy, too vital even to the financing of the US debt, too bonded up with the Forbes Five Hundred multi-national corporations. To provoke China, to even fantasize about economic “exclusion” to bring down China, is to pursue policies that will totally disrupt the world economy, first and foremost the US economy!

Conclusion

Obama’s ‘crackpot realism,’ his shift from wars in the Muslim world to military confrontation in Asia, has no intrinsic worth and poses extraordinary extrinsic costs. The military methods and economic goals are totally incompatible and beyond the capacity of the US, as it is currently constituted. Washington’s policies will not ‘weaken’ Russia or China, even less intimidate them. Instead it will encourage both to adopt more adversarial positions, making it less likely that they lend a hand to Obama’s sequential wars on behalf of Israel. Already Russia has sent warships to its Syrian port, refused to support an arms embargo against Syria and Iran, and (in retrospect) criticized the NATO war against Libya. China and Russia have far too many strategic ties with the world economy to suffer any great losses from a series of US military outposts and “exclusive” alliances. Russia can aim just as many deadly nuclear missiles at the West as the US can mount from its bases in Eastern Europe.

In other words, Obama’s military escalation will not change the nuclear balance of power, but will bring Russia and China into a closer and deeper alliance. Gone are the days of Kissinger-Nixon’s “divide and conquer” strategy pitting US-Chinese trade agreements against Russian arms. Washington has a totally exaggerated significance of the current maritime spats between China and its neighbors. What unites them in economic terms is far more important in the medium and long-run. China’s Asian economic ties will erode any tenuous military links to the US.

Obama’s “crackpot realism” views the world market through military lenses. Military arrogance toward Asia has led to a rupture with Pakistan, its most compliant client regime in South Asia. NATO deliberately slaughtered 24 Pakistani soldiers and thumbed their nose at the Pakistani generals, while China and Russia condemned the attack and gained influence.

In the end, the military and exclusionary posture toward China will fail. Washington will overplay its hand and frighten its business-oriented erstwhile Asian partners who only want to play off a US military presence to gain tactical economic advantage. They certainly do not want a new US instigated Cold War dividing and weakening the dynamic intra-Asian trade and investment. Obama and his minions will quickly learn that Asia’s current leaders do not have permanent allies — only permanent interests. In the final analysis, China figures prominently in configuring a new Asia-centric world economy. Washington may claim to have a ‘permanent Pacific presence,’ but until it demonstrates it can take care of its “basic business at home,” like arranging its own finances and balancing its current account deficits, the US Naval command may end up renting its naval facilities to Asian exporters and shippers, transporting goods for them, and protecting them by pursuing pirates, contrabandists and narco-traffickers. Come to think about it, Obama might reduce the US trade deficit with Asia by renting out the Seventh Fleet to patrol the Straits, instead of wasting US taxpayer money bullying successful Asian economic powers.

1. CNN.com, Nov. 16, 2011.
2. Financial Times, Dec. 2, 2011, p. 2.
3. FT, December 2, 2011, p.2.
4. FT, Nov. 23, 2011, p.6.

Mr. Yun has only a recent personal relationship with Myanmar. Mr. Yun was told in Na Pyi Daw by the Generals, now disguised in longy’s (traditional Burmese clothes) and business suits, that in order for America to make any progress with Myanmar you need to start respecting us by using the correct name of our country – Myanmar. Mr. Yun responded with conciliatory talk and stems of rose bushes full of thorns disguised as olive branches. In other words, he got nowhere fast with the Generals. Just as his boss, President Obama seems to muddle around with nice speeches filled with happy talk, but acts in opposition to his own words, so too the Generals must have assumed Mr. Yun was no one to take too seriously when it comes to words.

John McCain, on the other hand, has a history in Burma. He was not admonished for calling the country by its colonial name, Burma. He met the Generals and politely minced no words with them. He was firm, direct, soft-spoken and seemingly kind but in a masculine and strong in demeanor. He’s seen in Burma as man with courage and with a respectable instinct for survival. That last part is something the Burmese know much about. When I enlightened some of the Burmese men about Senator McCain’s past dalliance with the aircraft carrier Forestall, they laughed and actually seemed to like him more. Nothing really shocks the Burmese people. Not after they’ve lived looking down the barrels of guns pointed at them by their own people and spent dozens of years in jail being starved and mistreated by the millions.

Fifteen years ago John McCain visited Burma. This is a country of people so isolated from news of the world that some of my friends knew exactly where they were when he last visited and remembered in great detail what he did and what he said. McCain is seen as genuine and kind but strong and fatherly. He is seen as a protector of Aung San Suu Kyi and indeed, in his parting comments during this trip he reaffirmed his unwavering respect and support of The Lady and her ambition to see real Democracy take root in Burma. His tone about Burma, “its conservative tolerance for multi-culturism, traditions and its kind and gentle people” was observed as being spoken from the heart. Indeed, when he spoke those words his voice softened and his tone was genuinely emotional and reflected the words of a man who reflected his own character, and that he meant what he was saying.

Watching John McCain at that moment and throughout his tour in Burma made me wish that he were president of the United States. When he met with newly released political prisoners his compassion was expressly heartfelt and throughout his trip he was described as genuinely enjoying is presence in this great country of distraught, strife and beauty. The McCain of CNN, sound bites, and American political newsreels as spoken about by his opposers and the John McCain of Burma are not one in the same.

There was a moment of enchantment during his final press conference when a local government operative who poses as a journalist began a boastful performance and precluded his question to the Senator with a, “It is my opinion…” and the Senator raised his voice and steadied is tone and said, “I’m not here to listen to your opinion. I’m here to give you mine. Just please give me the question.” Many Burmese in the crowd were stunned and those who knew the so-called journalist smiled wide in approval of Senator McCain’s command. They could never dare take that tone with a government blowhard who walks amongst them. Later, many of my Burmese friends were gleeful and delighted to have observed McCain in such powerful a way. Their opinions of McCain are that a man like McCain – a warrior and war-survivor – is the only kind person that the generals will respect and fear. That opinion is shared by all of the Burmese people.

McCain also pointed out in his speech that Burma and America fought side by side to defeat the Japanese during World War ll, and he conveyed his knowledge and respect for Burmese history, culture, economics and social conditions. The Burmese know John McCain is a politician and, as such, that he carries the baggage of poor moral actions like his involvement in the long-ago Savings & Loans scandals. Not to mention his choosing a person with the brain of a 10th grade dropout who somehow got lucky enough to be in a position to quit a job as Governor of an entire American state. But they respect that he’s human, and that during his press conference he spoke from the heart and had a few jumbled words while trying carefully to say the correct thing diplomatically in a way that didn’t betray sincerity. John McCain is an admired and respected person in Burma.

Mr. Yun on the other hand, representing President Obama, was like a technocrat with talking points trying to find “common ground” and made a point of saying that he, “was not very used to this country.” The Burmese people that I asked hardly cared that Yun was there because they too seemed to understand that Obama and his administration of bankers is a convoluted labyrinth of hypocrisy and appeasement. They also know that John McCain is aware of exactly where he is standing on the ground. He didn’t use doublespeak and conciliatory gestures or use nonsensical phrases such as Yun used when he mentioned “principled engagement.” What does that mean anyway? That an oil company like Chevron can operate in Burma even though there are sanctions in place against other’s companies from doing so?

In the end, it’s hard to figure out what is really happening at the highest levels of policy making and diplomacy with regard to Burma – or Myanmar to Mr. Yun. But whatever McCain and Yun were doing, I trust McCain will not gloss over his ideas with abstract doublespeak. If John McCain hadn’t picked the dimwitted Sarah Palin as his running mate he would probably be the current American president, trusted (at least in Burma) and smartly engaged in world affairs. If only.

The western media likes to play up the idea that Myanmar’s government is more brutal and disgusting than any other on earth except for Iran. The ironic truth with both Myanmar and Iran is that the people of both nations love everything about the West but their governments have chosen not to fall under the influence of economic colonization of the World Bank, IMF, and all of the other Western economic schemes that renders poor nations in debt to the West, thereby opening their lands for “development” and “civil society” as western corporations plunder every available natural resources at bargain basement prices. The governments of Myanmar and Iran do business their own way. It looks like there will be few opportunities for Western influence in Myanmar and no matter how much the Western powers try, they may never play an important role in the economic viability of Myanmar.

Myanmar’s military led government doesn’t need the West and its predatory habits of in-debting poor nations into submission as a way to access and plunder its natural resources. In fact, the current rulers of Myanmar are definitely brutal and disgusting. They have proven to be pretty good at colonizing their own country and selfishly stealing all of the wealth gained from selling Myanmar’s resources. While ideals like freedom and democracy, which are both as flexible as a rubber band when it comes to the support from the West (think of the West’s reactions to current events in Libya and Bahrain as way to see the flexibility) are inspiring motivators to use in negotiations with governments who care about such things, in Myanmar, they mean nothing to the ruling elite. Unfortunately, the West has no other cards to play unless they play the military card. However, it’s unlikely the West will dare venture back into military intervention on China’s southern doorstep.

It’s been a foregone conclusion that The Western powers have nothing to teach Suu Kyi as well. She has given all she has to her people in spite of the West’s support, not because of it. She is their one example and role model that teaches them what freedom and democracy are. The Burmese certainly don’t need the West’s charade of supporting Suu Kyi on principle either because the West has no principle to stand on. With confounding hypocrisy the West supports dictators around the world for political and economic reasons when it suits their economic interests. That’s it. If there was any real dedication by the West at supporting freedom and democracy then they would have supported the decision of the Palestinian people when they voted for the terrorist government of Hamas as their chosen government in what was, by all accounts, a very clean election.

The West knows that it is helpless when it comes to Myanmar and they are losing, or have lost, Myanmar economically and strategically. The problem facing the West is that Aung San Suu Kyi reminds them of what they are not – principled. She is their sole access to a beleaguered nation under occupation by its own flesh and blood. The West supports her in the name of supporting freedom and democracy – but they also know that the worn out ruse is not working economically. So then, it truly looks like the West will soon abandon Suu Kyi incrementally in favor of gaining economic access to Myanmar’s resources. Even so, with China, India, Thailand and Vietnam on the margins of Myanmar, there’s no incentive in any way for the current rulers of Myanmar to deal with Western powers. And everyone, especially the rulers of Myanmar, knows it. Sadly, the West will put on a seriousness display of unwavering support for Aung San Suu Kyi while they slyly stack the deck and deal the cards to lifting sanctions. When that happens, both Suu Kyi and NLD will be more isolated. They will be more economically and politically irrelevant than they already are in this oppressed nation of 56 million.

In the end, if sanctions are lifted and the West gets into Myanmar western companies and politicians will herald in a new era of cooperation and development with Myanmar’s next elected government. NGO’s will run amok in Burma under the guise of Civil Society (as they have been doing in Cambodia for two decades) colonizing the Burmese people with low wage jobs and cobbling the already impoverished people with dependence on all kinds of relief and aid. The example to go by for this sits right on the border of Burma in Thailand near the town of Mae Sot. Garment factories use Burmese refugees and migrant Burmese workers to make ladies undergarments to be sold in major U.S. department stores such as J.C. Penney. Some NGO workers in the area act as interlocutors (think labor contractors) between the factories and the workers. The Burmese workers are paid paltry sums and work under some of the most abusive sweatshop conditions in the world. They are seen as people having no status. They can’t legally move into Thailand and they can’t go home to Burma. The justification of the NGO worker’s is that at least they have wages to live on. True. And J.C. Penney makes a killing with selling bras and panties to unsuspecting women in the United States.

Yes, if the West one day gets itself into Burma, hundreds if not thousands of NGO workers will drive around in SUV’s saving the Burmese and they will cash fat paychecks while they constantly raise money from donors and buy up prime property in Rangoon, Nap Yi Daw and Pyin Oo Lwin and Ngapoli Beach. Western corporations will set up shop and Coca Cola will eventually have a bottling plant somewhere on the outskirts of Mandalay near the Trans Asian rail lines and highways currently being built across South East Asia. Factories will be built and Burmese people will work long hours under exploitative conditions as CNN and BBC talking heads marvel at the rebirth of Myanmar and free market policies in the new South East Asia. All of this is unlikely to happen though because China, Thailand, Japan, now India, and other Asian corporations are already in place in Burma. Of course, Chevron and Total have been in Burma for years since they are exceptions to the sanctions mandate placed on Burma by the West. Yes, the West’s hypocrisy is sometimes so vile one can drive a car with it.

Ultimately, a utopian outcome on the horizon for the people of Myanmar has all but vanished. Poverty will persist for the majority of Myanmar’s people as the ruling elite will cater to transnational corporations with or without sanctions. Dissent of any kind will be crushed and persist as it has for decades past. The only real question is who, in the end, will be cashing in on Myanmar’s bountiful natural resources? With or without freedom and democracy the people of Myanmar should keep a stern eye on their western motives. They are facing a lose-lose situation with the lifting of economic sanctions and cooperation of any kind with the current so-called government. Any person with a heart would call Myanmar’s rulers what they really are – tyrannical and homicidal monsters. Yet since the West really hasn’t shown the world a decidedly better face either, what, in the end, will change in Burma?

Since the explosion on Tranoscean’s rig in April caused America’s worst oil spill, the company hired by BP has acknowledged in its latest regulatory 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) it had “recently received an administrative subpoena” from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) regarding its “operations in Myanmar [Burma]”. The filing was submitted on August 4.

The 10-Q form, is an SEC filing that must be submitted quarterly with the SEC and contains similar information to the annual 10-K form, however the information is generally less detailed, and the financial statements are generally unaudited.

The subpoena from the US government’s sanctions enforcement division came after Mizzima first reported in May, that Transocean’s US regulatory filings showed the firm was hired late last year to do drilling work in Burmese waters co-owned by a company controlled by Stephen Law, a junta crony businessman alleged by the US government and analysts to be a major drug-money launderer.

“OFAC’s administrative subpoena authority”, according to the US Treasury department’s website, “generally provides the basis for OFAC to require the production of whatever additional information it may require to assess its enforcement response to the apparent violation”. As a subpoena is not voluntary, failure to comply with such an administrative writ is a serious violation.

Mizzima’s report of Transocean’s ties with a blacklisted Burmese narcotics-trafficking clan was picked up in a front page story in The New York Times, which also detailed the firm’s questionable practices in Iran, Norway and Syria.

Wong Aung, an observer of Burma’s natural resource sector and international co-ordinator for the Shwe Gas Movement, a coalition of Burmese organisations opposed to offshore gas drilling in the country’s ecologically sensitive coastal regions, is pleased the US government has listened to calls to investigate Transocean’s shady dealings in Burma.

He believed it was “inconceivable that Transocean was unaware” that the oil and gas rights in the waters they were drilling in were co-owned by Burma’s infamous Law family. Stephen Law, aka Tun Myint Naing, his Singaporean wife, and his “narco warlord” father are all on OFAC blacklists, officially called the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list. All three are also listed in similar European Union travel bans and sanctions lists.

Transocean International’s corporate 8-K filing with the SEC on November 2 showed that Chinese state-run energy company CNOOC hired Transocean’s semi-submersible Actinia, a Panamanian-registered drilling rig, to operate in Burma from October to December.

According to the CNOOC website, all of the firm’s stakes in Burma’s gas industry are held in partnership with China Focus Development (formerly known as Golden Aaron) and China Global Construction, with CNOOC as the operator. China Focus Development is a privately owned Singapore-registered firm whose sole shareholders are Stephen Law and his wife, Ng Sor Hong, aka Cynthia Ng. The US and EU sanctions list show Ng Sor Hong to be chief executive of the firm, which is also among more than a dozen companies controlled by Law on the OFAC blacklist of banned Burma-related entities.

Law’s Sino-Burmese father Lao Sit Han, aka Lo Hsing Han, is believed by US drug-trafficking analysts to have controlled one of Southeast Asia’s best-armed narcotics militias during the 1970’s. After coming to an understanding with the Burmese regime, Lao Sit Han moved to Rangoon where he reportedly used the profits from his drug empire to expand into other areas including operating ports through the family controlled Asia World, a US blacklisted firm over which Lao Sit Han is chairman.

Stephen Law is the managing director of Asia World and is believed to be the driving force behind what has become of one of Burma’s largest conglomerates. As well as running Burma’s largest deepwater port, the firm owns lucrative toll highways, hotels and is also involved in many construction projects, including building Rangoon’s Traders Hotel and refurbishing the Rangoon airport.

According to a February 2008 statement by the US Treasury department: “In addition to their support for the Burmese regime, Steven Law and Lo Hsing Han have a history of involvement in illicit activities.”

“Lo Hsing Han, known as the ‘Godfather of Heroin’, has been one of the world’s key heroin traffickers dating back to the early 1970s. Steven Law joined his father’s drug empire in the 1990s and has since become one of the wealthiest individuals in Burma,” the Treasury statement said.

Transocean predicts any penalty would be limited

Referring to the OFAC probe into their Burmese dealings and a similar one regarding the firm’s activities relating to Iran, Transocean stated in its filing that: “We do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these inquiries to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows.”

Wong Aung said that he hoped that Transocean was justly punished for their apparent violation of US sanctions against Burma and the Law narcotics clan. He said: “I’m sure Transocean will fight hard to get out of this, and I hope they aren’t just given a slap on the wrist but a meaningful penalty that will send a clear message to multinational firms not to engage in business with the Burmese regime and one of Asia’s most notorious narco [narcotics-profit] laundering families.”

He said the “Transocean investigation should be a wake-up call for the US government to more stringently monitor what firms are doing in Burma and other places of concern. Both the Treasury department and the SEC must force multinational firms to be more transparent about their activities overseas. Far too often Western firms are allowed to ignore sanctions using offshore subsidiaries and secret contracts; even their large institutional shareholders don’t know what the firms are necessarily doing in Burma.”

Mizzima was unable to reach Transocean or OFAC by the time this story was completed.

Driller’s vague denial challenged

The New York Times reported on July 7 that Transocean had claimed in a statement sent to the paper that the firm had not violated US sanctions on Burma because neither Stephen Law nor his father’s names appeared in their contract with CNOOC. The statement failed to confirm or deny whether his wife, Ng Sor Hong, or the firm she heads, China Focus, appeared in Transocean’s contract.

Rights activist Wong Aung told Mizzima that Transocean’s statement was misleading. “The New York Times only reported that Transocean claims Stephen Law and his father weren’t mentioned in the CNOOC Burma contract. It’s interesting that there is no discussion of whether the contract mentions Law’s wife Ng Sor Hong and the US blacklisted company she heads that co-owns the rights to the gas block with CNOOC.

“It’s extremely unlikely that such a contract would not state who co-owns the gas rights to the area where the drilling would occur. The US and Swiss government must force Transocean to fully disclose the text of this contract,” Wong Aung said.

The company’s statement to the Times also included the cryptic claim that: “No Transocean affiliate that is subject to the US ban has ever done business in Myanmar [Burma].” As Transocean, formely based in the US, is now headquartered in landlocked Switzerland (where the Swiss press reported that it employs a mere 12 people), and the Actinia rig sent to drill for CNOOC is registered in Panama, Transocean will likely argue that is not subject to US sanctions. The fact that the OFAC has launched an investigation shows that the US government thinks otherwise.

Other Swiss firm fined for violating US sanctions on Burma, Iran

Credit Suisse, a major Swiss bank with considerable business in the US agreed last December to pay an unprecedented US$536 million fine after sanctions enforcers at the OFAC concluded the bank had violated American financial sanctions against Iran, Burma, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, and the former Liberian regime of Charles Taylor. On announcing the settlement, US Attorney General Eric Holder said the bank had illegally enabled countries under sanctions to circumvent the bans by creating “a business model to allow these rogue players access to US dollars”.

Although the US government investigation found that most of the violations related to transactions with Iran, Credit Suisse, under the terms of the settlement, admitted that it had illegally sent money to Burma on 30 occasions. Credit Suisse also acknowledged that over a 20-year period it had sent illegally a total of more than US$1.6 billion in funds to the sanctions-bound countries.

Antonio Graceffo¹ is a wanted man. His crime? Supporting the Shan people in their rebellion against the ruling military junta in Burma, known euphemistically as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

A former successful Wall Street investment banker from Brooklyn turned travel and adventure writer, Antonio has authored numerous books, including about his adventures bicycling around Taiwan, bicycling across the Taklamakan Desert in China, and his time studying with the monks at the famous Shaolin Temple. More recently, he has been involved trying to bring the world’s attention to the plight of the Burmese people suffering under the brutal reign of the SPDC.

Since outside journalists are banned from entering the country, Antonio crossed the border under the protection of the Shan State Army (SSA) and began reporting on conditions in the country, interviewing victims of the SPDC’s war against the people, writing about what he learned, and producing a series of videos featured on YouTube to bring awareness about the plight of the Shan.

Perhaps more well known than the SSA are another resistance group known as the Karen National Union (KNU), and its armed wing, the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), who were featured in the 2008 movie Rambo, starring Sylvester Stallone in the fourth installment in the film series.

But while Stallone played a fictional character, Antonio Graceffo, one could fairly say, is the real Rambo. An experienced martial artist featured on the Discovery Channel and in a number of martial arts films, Antonio was embedded with the Shan State Army and helped train Shan soldiers in the art of close-contact self-defense. Among Antonio’s videos on YouTube are several featuring him demonstrating martial arts techniques and sparring with SSA soldiers.

It is on a purported KNU website that an image of Antonio appears under a heading reading “wanted”, reminiscent of an old Western poster — except, of course, that Antonio is wearing the cap and uniform of the Shan State Army instead of a cowboy hat and leather vest, and holding a Kalashnikov rifle instead of a Winchester.

The website, MyanmarNargis.org, has a few telltale signs of being a false front operation–what is euphemistically known in the field as “counterintelligence”– headed up in fact by the SPDC. Perhaps not least among these signs is the name, “Myanmar”, which is the ruling regime’s name-change for the country that is otherwise known — particularly among opposition groups who do not recognize the regime — as Burma.

And the fact that a “wanted” poster for a man who has helped the rebels on a website of a rebel organization is also more than slightly counter-intuitive. Anti-junta groups Antonio remains in contact with confirmed to him that it is a disinformation site designed by the SPDC to create disunity and infighting among and within opposition groups.

“Fortunately,” says Antonio, “most people working on the Burma issue don’t trust anything written in Burmese. Each of the tribes has its own language and alphabet. Most of them are smart enough to use English on their websites to garner international support. The junta, it appears, is not that smart. But, since General Ne Win forcibly closed all of Burma’s universities, to prevent smart people from meeting and exchanging political ideas, it is no wonder that they are slipping intellectually.”

The text of the website page featuring the “wanted” poster, which requires the proper character encoding to be installed on one’s computer in order to read it, was translated for Antonio by a person he described as “an exiled Burmese intellectual, who had to flee Burma and seek asylum in another country. He hates the junta with a passion and supports the resistance groups.”

The exile noted along with his translation to Antonio, “the KNU has cleared your name and so we cannot sell you by the kilo to them.” (How very disappointing for those of us who know his whereabouts).

The page heading, under the “wanted” poster, reads “The Former Marine Who Would Combine Military Forces with Terrorists.” It describes the KNU, SSA and other resistance groups, as “armed terrorists” (perhaps–just maybe–another sign that the website is a counterintelligence front of the SPDC). It describes Antonio as “a former US Marine Italian race, American citizen”, and as being the head of a small group travelling within the country. It says Antonio’s group “is surely going to have to run and escape for their lives as they go through the Armed Forces’ Offensives” but that “it is more certain they will die violent deaths.”

Not very polite. Fortunately, Antonio is not actually in Burma currently — nor was he during the period of time last month the website alleges he was moving through the country with his “group” — a merry band, no doubt.

As much as the page seems designed to put people on the lookout for Antonio, it also seems intended to sow resentment among opposition leaders. Take, for instance, the insertion of this tidbit: “5th Brigade Commander Baw Kyaw Hair, on his part, was dissatisfied with how the present congress has appointed a central group in which General Tamlabaw’s sons and daughters have important posts in the KNU.”

Baw Kyaw Hair’s group “favors having a ceasefire with the present military government and exchange arms for peace”, the website says. (The exiled translator noted to Antonio that “this is an SPDC phrase for complete surrendering of one’s forces and one’s weapons to SPDC — very indicative of an SPDC author”.)

That author adds, “It is heard that 6th Brigade Commander Hsarmi is [also] dissatisfied with Tamlabaw’s circle of family and friends.”

The intent thus seems to try to poison relations among rebel groups as much as to threaten Mr. Graceffo — not that such a warning from the violent SPDC should be taken lightly.

While Antonio always manages to keep his sense of humor, despite the danger and despite the ugliness he has witnessed firsthand, the oppression in Burma under the military junta of the SPDC is no laughing matter. It’s high time the world took notice and took action. Antonio’s courageous work in defiance of the ruling regime has been intended to further that goal.

To close, in the words of Antonio, “please say a prayer for the people of Shan State.”

1. Adventure and martial arts author, Antonio Graceffo has lived in Asia for many years, publishing four books and several hundred articles in magazines and websites around the world. He has worked as a consultant and writer for shows on the History and Discovery channels and appears on camera in “Digging for the Truth” and “Human Weapon”. Antonio is host of the web TV show, “Martial Arts Odyssey.” Antonio was embedded with the Shan State rebel army in Burma, documenting human rights abuses, and doing a film and print project to raise awareness of the Shan people. See all of his videos about martial arts, Burma and other countries. Check out his books. Check out his website, Speaking Adventure. To send him an email, click here.

With more than 20,000 dead, possibly 40,000 missing, and close to one million homeless, the junta made it clear that it, not the international community, would provide whatever humanitarian aid was necessary.

A week before the cyclone hit, President Bush extended sanctions against Myanmar by another year because of what he called that junta’s “large-scale repression of the democratic opposition.” Paranoid about anything that could threaten its power, the junta was frightened that the United States would use the cyclone as a reason to invade the country.

The junta’s response the first week of May was little different than the international concern almost three years earlier. It wasn’t the destruction of villages and the rice farming industry, but the destruction of cities and the shrimp industry. It wasn’t a cyclone named Nargis, but a hurricane named Katrina.

It’s been well documented that the Bush-Cheney Administration, with its head in Iraq, wasn’t prepared for a natural disaster. Like the leaders in Myanmar, the Bush-Cheney Administration was slow to inform the people, and slow to act during the crisis. Less known is that President Bush refused innumerable offers of assistance to the people of the Gulf Coast.

More than 20 countries — including Israel, Mexico, China, England, and the Dominican Republic — quickly offered humanitarian and financial assistance. President Bush’s first response was to tell the audience of ABC-TV’s Good Morning, America:

“I’m not expecting much from foreign nations because we hadn’t asked for it. I do expect a lot of sympathy and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country’s going to rise up and take care of it. . . . You know, we would love help, but we’re going to take care of our own business as well, and there’s no doubt in my mind we’ll succeed.”

Cuba, which has one of the best health care and disaster response systems in the world, offered substantial medical supplies and 1,600 physicians, most of them specialists. Rejected.

Venezuela offered $1 million, in addition to oil and humanitarian supplies. Rejected.

Russia offered medical supplies, evacuation equipment, a water cleansing system, a rescue helicopter, and 60 persons specially trained in search and rescue operations. Rejected.

Germany sent a military plane carrying 15 tons of emergency provisions. The United States denied it landing rights.

Not only did the federal government reject humanitarian offers from other countries, it either rejected or ignored offers by the American people and its own governmental agencies.

Before the storm hit, Amtrak offered trains to evacuate New Orleans. Ignored.

The Forest Service, shortly after Katrina came ashore, offered water-tanker aircraft to fight the fires. Ignored.

The Coast Guard, which would fly more than 20,000 rescue operations, offered 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel to Jefferson Parrish. The federal government refused to allow delivery.

The captain of an amphibious assault ship off the Gulf Coast offered to send her sailors onto land to help the people, have her helicopters assist in rescue operations, provide as much as 100,000 gallons of drinkable water a day, and open her ship’s operating rooms to provide medical assistance and 600 beds for the relief effort. The federal government ignored and then delayed her offer.

During the first week of the disaster, the federal government had ordered the Red Cross and Salvation Army not to go into the New Orleans disaster zone, falsely citing a lack of adequate security. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico offered 400 National Guard soldiers the day the hurricane hit; however, they weren’t sent for four more days because of what Richardson called “federal paperwork” that the Pentagon insisted had to first be completed.

Chicago offered firefighters, police, health workers, sanitation workers, a mobile health clinic, trucks, boats, and cars. Rejected.

The Florida Airboat Association offered to send in 300 fully equipped boats with trained pilots. Rejected.

About 75 companies volunteered to use their own corporate aircraft to ferry supplies into smaller local and regional airports. When the federal government ignored the offer, the companies flew in more than 130,000 pounds of food and critical supplies, making determinations without federal assistance or appreciation of where the needs were the greatest.

Hundreds of companies tried to provide several million gallons of drinking water and ice for the evacuees. The federal government either blocked their delivery or routed them on a circuitous path throughout the South, and never allowed them to unload their cargoes. Members of the International Bottled Water Association did provide 10 million bottles of fresh water for evacuees, but received no assistance from the federal government, which refused to return several phone calls.

A national corporation offered free telecommunications equipment but the federal government rejected it, according to Ern Blackwelder of the Business Executives for National Security. Blackwelder told the Atlanta Journal–Constitution that the government later contracted with the same company and paid for equipment that had previously been offered at no charge.

About a week after Katrina hit, the U.S. began accepting humanitarian aid, but only from countries it determined were its allies.

Make no mistake about it, the leaders of Myanmar are dictators who trample human rights, have led their nation into an extended economic crisis, and are interested only in keeping their own power. Almost a month after Nargis hit the Irrawaddy Delta, the junta is now finally allowing foreign aid, but not from the United States.

But also make no mistake about this. The United States under its current administration will continue to refuse humanitarian aid and personnel from Cuba, Venezuela, and any other country that doesn’t agree with the Bush-Cheney politics.

The Myanmar regime is not a regime that I will defend. It is a militaristic clique that has seized power and rules by force. Nevertheless, much the same can be said about the US regime. Unlike the US regime, however, the Myanmar regime, basically, confines its perfidy to within its own borders.

Of course, whenever humans are in trouble, a responsible government will see to it that those humans are attended to, fed, and cared for.

The Myanmar government is accused by western governments and western media of negligence and worse towards its own citizens.

UK prime minister Gordon Brown declared: “It is being made into a man-made catastrophe by the negligence, the neglect and the inhuman treatment of the Burmese people by a regime that is failing to act and to allow the international community to do what it wants to do.”

“Man-made catastrophe.” Isn’t that what the UK engineered in Iraq as junior partner (poodle) to the US? Over a million excess Iraqi civilian mortalities estimated since March 2003 (and there is no reason to ignore the US-UK supported UN sanctions that killed another million or so Iraqi civilians after 1991).² That is genocide, and genocides are always man-made.

Brown added, “The responsibility lies with the Burmese regime and they must be held accountable.”

Fine, and to be fair and honest, at the same time, Brown and erstwhile prime minister Tony Blair must be held accountable for their role in the murderous carnage in Iraq.

If being accountable is to have any meaning, then Britain must, at long last, also be judged and do penance for its crimes, among others, in the Chagos archipelago, on the Indian subcontinent, against the Indigenous peoples in the western hemisphere and Oceania, throughout the Middle East, particularly its complicity in wiping of Palestine off the map.

The Plank Stuck in the Western Eye

The Europeans are calling for a forced intervention, and some US members of the House of Representatives are imploring president George Bush to intervene in Myanmar.

The Europeans, US, and Canada are complicit with Zionists in the starvation of Palestinians. This is in addition to demolishing homes, carrying out assassinations, withholding money transfers, destroying vital utilities, etc. in Gaza,³ and yet they are calling for an intervention elsewhere.

French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert called for immediate action in Myanmar: “We are shifting from a situation of non-assistance to people in need to a situation that could lead to a true crime against humanity if we go on like that.”

One might wonder why the British and French “leaders” wail and moan about disaster-stricken Myanmar but are silent about disaster-stricken New Orleans. Almost three years after Hurricane Katrina struck the coast of Louisiana, people in New Orleans are waiting on assistance.⁴

The 43 US representatives calling for intervention in Myanmar are apparently unaware of the tardy US response to the victims of Katrina⁵ or that the US regime rejected aid from certain countries, such as Cuba. ⁶

Venezuela, which contributed generously to the victims of Katrina, was reportedly rebuffed initially by the Bush administration.⁷ An excuse proffered by a senior State Department official, according to the Washington Post, was that “unsolicited offers can be ‘counterproductive.’”⁸

And, where are the voices of British and French government figures about the genocide Israel perpetrates against Palestinians? Obviously, these western government figures are selectively speaking out on man-made catstrophes and crimes against humanity.

Corporate Media Deluge on Myanmar vs. Silence on Palestine

A sampling of corporate media headlines reveals an animus toward the Myanmar government:

“Aid stymied off Myanmar shores and borders,” International Herald Tribune
“Myanmar Neighbors Seek Ways To Press Country on Cyclone Aid,” Wall Street Journal
“International Pressure on Myanmar Junta Is Building,” New York Times
“Diplomats tour cyclone zone, but Myanmar still refuses aid,” Euronews.net

That the corporate media would go into a frenzy over Myanmar while ignoring the man-made catastrophes in Palestine and in Iraq is telling.

In the case of Myanmar, the western corporate media is behaving as it should: criticizing a non-democratic regime and, supposedly, putting the interests of the Myanmarese people front and center.

But one must ask: why is this same media falling over itself to celebrate 60 years in power by Jewish segregationists who contrived and meted out a catastrophe (al-Nakba) to the Palestinians? Why has this same media remained so quiescent over the travails that still bedevil the citizenry of New Orleans? Why does the same media collaborate in the ultimate international crime of aggression-occupation against Iraq?

The contrasting response to cyclone-ravaged Myanmar with other contemporary disasters — whether man-made or acts of nature — scathingly exposes the nasty double standards of western governments and their corporate media.

1. In this fluid situation, there are reports of 78,000 dead, 56,000 missing, and an estimated 2.5 million survivors. The Red Cross reported that the total cyclone death toll may be as high as 127,990, and that up to 2.5 million people are in urgent need of food, water and shelter.AP, “Red Cross: Myanmar death toll as high as 128,000,” newsday.com, 15 May 2008.
2. Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts, “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey,” Lancet, 368: 21 October 2006: 1421-1428. Gideon Polya, “Two Million Iraq Deaths, Eight Million Bush Asian Holocaust Deaths And Media Holocaust Denial,” Countercurrents.org, 7 October, 2007.
3. Saleh Al-Naami, “Darkness, starvation and imminent death,” Al-Ahram Weekly, 24-30 January 2008.
4. Bill Quigley, “Half New Orleans Poor Permanently Displaced: Failure or Success?” Dissident Voice, 4 March 2008.
5. Julian Borger and Duncan Campbell, “Why did help take so long to arrive?” Guardian, 3 September 2005.
6. Hector Carreon, “Bush accepts aid from Mexico, silent on Venezuela but rejects help from Cuba,” La Voz de Aztlan, 8 September 2005.
7. Duncan Campbell, “Bush rejects Chávez aid,” Guardian, 7 September 2005.
8. Cited in Cleto Sojo, “Venezuela Offers $1M, Oil, Food and Equipment for U.S. Victims of Hurricane Katrina,” Venezuelanalysis.com, 1 September 2005.