May 16, 2008 - No. 80 Hands off Lebanon and Myanmar!Lebanon Myanmar SUPPLEMENT Lebanon Hands Off Lebanon!
|
 Beirut being recontructed after the Israeli
invasion in Summer 2006, which caused massive destruction.
|
The Cabinet and the March 14 Alliance must shoulder the blame for the suffering of the Lebanese people in the fighting which has claimed the lives of at least 81 people, wounded over 200 and caused unknown destruction to homes, businesses and infrastructure. If they had not moved to wipe out their political opponents through issuing illegal orders and by means of violence, such troubling developments would not have occurred.
Yet some achievements have certainly been made. First and foremost, this liquidationist push against the resistance has been effectively blocked. Had it succeeded and were the people to be left defenceless in the face of another Anglo-Zionist invasion, the suffering of the people and the horrors unleashed against them would be magnified.
Sovereignty or Surrender: The Line of Demarcation
Although this round of attacks has been blocked, it has yet to be seen what further provocations the U.S.-Zionist alliance has in store. It is obvious, however, that the Cabinet and March 14 Alliance are looking to their backers, from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, for assistance.
On May 14, the Arab League's Ministerial Committee, headed by Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani, commenced meetings in Beirut, attempting to intervene in the situation. Over the last couple of days, the Committee met with the key players to discuss potential ways to move forward, with meetings in Doha between the Opposition and March 14 Alliance. Both parties have welcomed the Arab League's intervention, but on widely divergent conditions. The Opposition has asked that the Arab Ministerial Committee not interfere in the internal affairs of Lebanon or its resistance, but rather that it play a neutral and conciliatory role, perhaps helping to broker a deal between the two parties. While such a role is to be hoped for, there is concern given that some member countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, are backers of the March 14 Alliance.
The U.S., Europe and others have threatened to intervene if the Arab Ministerial Committee does not reach a resolution to the political stand off between the Opposition Coalition and the March 14 Alliance. In particular, Bush has threatened to take this matter to the UN Security Council to pursue his endless efforts to disarm the Lebanese resistance.
Starting on May 13, Bush began his five-day tour of the Middle East, with his first day program to join in the celebrations of the criminal Israeli state as it marks sixty years of ethnic cleansing, aggression and human rights abuses against the Palestinian and other neighbouring peoples, including Lebanon. Next, he has been scheduled to meet with all of the notorious U.S. puppet regimes of the region. May 13 he also met with the Saudi Arabian monarchy and then flew to Egypt, where he addressed the World Economic Forum and met with Egypt's Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah.
 Montreal
demonstration in summer 2006
opposing
the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. |
As Bush, the Arab League, Canada, France, Germany and others declare their views on the situation in Lebanon, it is clear that the Lebanese people will not be left alone to deal with their problems. Their talk seeks to hide that it is just such foreign interference that left Lebanon devastated by endless crisis and violence in the past. The line of demarcation in Lebanon, the Middle East and indeed, much of the world, is simple: it is between those who stand for the sovereignty and rights of peoples and those whose aim is to serve the imperial interests of the U.S. and other big powers. In Lebanon, this is the line that separates the courageous and principled actions of the Opposition on the one hand, and the cowardly actions of the March 14 Alliance and the Cabinet.
The Lebanese Opposition: Not a Sectarian Alliance
This is the difference between the Opposition that intervened to defend the resistance, the only force to have ever been able to defend the sovereignty of Lebanon, and the Cabinet which attempted to undermine the resistance. This is the difference between the Opposition that handed over the areas it secured to the neutral army, and the Cabinet whose ally, the U.S., is inching its naval destroyers ever closer to the Lebanese coast.
All attempts to claim that this or that government, whether Iran or Syria, are in control of the Opposition or that the opposition serves sectarian interests not those of Lebanon are aimed at hiding the fact that it is the Lebanese people who are at the forefront of their struggle. How are we to believe that the Lebanese people, the only force in the world to have ever defeated the Zionist forces, not once but twice, who fought to the death against French rule in the post-WWI period, against Ottoman rule and so on, would ever accept a foreign master? It is simply false; the people themselves are the ones who have armed themselves with the organization, theory and weapons in their efforts to solve the problems plaguing their society.
The recent actions of the Lebanese Opposition were in no way aimed at staging a coup d'etat or gaining a political victory for their own faction, no matter what the Western powers and members of the March 14 Alliance say. If they had any such interest, Lebanon would have been in their hands within a day or two. It took them barely six hours to secure Beirut and all of Southern Lebanon, not to mention various other areas of the country. In other words, within a few hours, the Opposition had been able to control a majority of Lebanon. They had all the treacherous forces under seige by their forces -- March 14 Alliance leaders, from Prime Minister Siniora to the head of the so-called Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt. What did they do? At their initiative, they handed all these areas over to the Lebanese army. And why? Because the Opposition, representing the vast majority of the people, has only one interest: to further the nation-building project in Lebanon. Thousands have given their lives in the fight against the U.S.-Zionist invasions. To realize their nation-building cause, the resistance has shown consistent political acumen that the likes of Bush cannot even imagine. It has understood that the Lebanese people must be at the forefront of solving the problems, rather than declaring the political and constitutional crisis in Lebanon a matter to be resolved through the barrel of the gun. This latter strategy is exactly what the March 14 Alliance, through the Cabinet and its treacherous and self-serving politics, aimed to do -- namely, to use force to wipe out their political opponents and bolster their masters' power in the Middle East via Lebanon.
The Lebanese People Fight to Renew their Political System
The Opposition has attempted over the years to mobilize the broadest sectors of the Lebanese people in discussions on how to end the confessional electoral and governance system (ultimately, a legacy of French colonial rule). It has consistently called for the renewal of the electoral and political systems and the constitutions on which they are based. This confessional system is the mechanism imposed on Lebanon by the big colonial powers to foment constant civil war, an aim that only the vigilance of the Lebanese people has thwarted. This system works to keep the people divided along communal lines so that they do not tackle their social, economic and other problems as one. This is used by the foreign powers to divide and rule the country. The only solution to these problems is the national resistance, which upholds the sovereignty and security of the country so that the people can address their needs in calm and peace. Ultimately, the efforts of the U.S. and Lebanese puppets to disarm the resistance and their refusal to allow the renewal of the constitution and political system are aimed at facilitating foreign control of the country.
  Left: Michel Aoun, head of the Maronite Christian party, Al-Tayyar Al-Hour, member organization of the Opposition Coalition. Right: legendary Druze Muslim leader Kamal Jumblatt, head of the 1970s National Liberation Front and founder of the Progressive Socialist Party. |
Indeed, this is the lesson to be learned from the history of Lebanon. Over the last century, only the nationalist resistance movements have been capable of uniting the Lebanese people into united fronts which surmount religious lines. Examples of those who fought for the cause of the people include the Lebanese Nationalist Front in the 1970s under the great Druze Muslim leader, Kamal Jumblatt (father of the current Jumblatt, who has betrayed every aspect of his father's legacy), and currently within the Opposition Coalition, leaders such as Michel Aoun from Al-Tayyar Al-Hour, a mostly Maronite Christian party, the learned Sunni Muslim leaders, Osama Sa'ad in Saida and Omar Karami in Tripoli, the skilled Shi'ite Muslim leaders, Nabih Berri and Hassan Nusrallah, among others.
The confessional system is at the heart of the political crisis, as a result of which the Lebanese presidential elections have been postponed 19 times and the country has been left without a President for over a year. It is unlikely that the new June date for Parliament to approve presidential candidates will be met. All these many challenges would certainly be resolved if the U.S. and other former colonial powers would simply leave Lebanon alone. Instead, the big powers attempt to use this small strip of land on the Mediterranean as a pawn in their bid for domination of the region. Yet the Lebanese people, despite the plans of the great and mighty, refuse to view themselves according to the terms and interests of the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia or anyone else. They will unfalteringly continue their fight to assert their right to chart their own course, their own history and being, without consulting anyone. As such, no matter what scheme is concocted in Tel Aviv or Washington, the Lebanese resistance will never falter or fail.
Long Live the Heroic Resistance!
The People United Will Never Be Defeated!
* Jamilé Ghaddar is a Canadian of Lebanese descent and founding member of McMaster Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights. She is a recent graduate of the Anthropology and Linguistics program at McMaster University, and has worked within the immigration settlement sector as a youth coordinator and settlement worker. She is a member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada and a journalist with TML Daily. Her work has focused on democratic renewal in Canada as part of defending minority rights, rights of peoples to self-determination and the interests of all of society.
There Is No Civil War in Lebanon;
There Is a War Against the Resistance
What is going on today in Lebanon is just an extension of the situation in the entire region. The U.S. and its Western allies are trying to show everyone that religion is the main factor of this dispute and they are trying to cover the political motivations and especially economic interests involved in the whole process. There are two main positions in Lebanon today, on one hand a colonialist project supported by the U.S. and its principle ally in the region, Israel, whose spokesman is the Lebanese Government itself, and on the other, a project of sovereignty conducted by the resistance movement. In fact, it is a war between those who are simply patriotic and external agents. That is why both camps are composed of several currents simultaneously; religious, sectarian, ideological, and so forth. It is important to note that Michiel Aoun, the nationalist QS (Qornet Shehwan) and the Communist parties are in line with Hezbollah.
The pro-imperialist Western Lebanese government aims at pitting the National Army against the people and the resistance. Their goal is to hide behind the army because they lack popular support. It should be noted that the army establishment is still led by nationalists.
Prior to the Israeli invasion against Lebanon in 2006, there was a series of internal and external pressure to dismantle the legitimate movement of resistance in Lebanon, which is Hezbollah. This pressure increased after this group defeated the Israeli army and restored the hopes of other resistance movements in various parts of the Arab Homeland. This victory demonstrated without a doubt that resistance against globalism on the one hand, and guerrilla war on the other is still possible.
A few days ago, after the longest session in the history of the Lebanese parliament, the pro-Western coalition voted to make the communication network of Hezbollah illegal, a communication system that was very effective against the Israeli army during the war last summer. This "Declaration of War" against the resistance is just another example of how the local puppets of the U.S. and Israel are fighting against their own people, because through this action, the government is actually dismantling the main tool the resistance has to fight against the colonialist project in the region.
This is not a minor issue. It is the first time since the Taif Accords in 1989 that put an end to the civil war in the country and consecrated the legitimacy of the armed resistance of Hezbollah against Israel, that the government condemns a communication network which is part of the security apparatus of the movement and considers it an "illegal threat against the State."
What the Lebanese Government is doing today is nothing less than the dirty work of Israel, just a few days after the U.S. government declared once again that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, keeping it on the "Blacklist." The aim here can only be to give the U.S. the control of the airport and all the communication systems within the country, with the result of undermining the legitimate resistance of the people against their main target, Israel. They do this by provoking internal fights, which are easy to add to the confusion of religious disputes, just in the way they already have been doing in Iraq and in Palestine. The main reason behind the firing of the leader of the airport is that he declared that Al-Hariri secretly met Bandar, the Saudi Amir, in the airport several days before the government decided to fire him. Bandar was the only Arab who was told by Bush when the invasion against Iraq would start.
The biggest threat for a colonialist project in the region, including both the Arab ruler regimes and the Western supporters, are the people and their power of resistance. To undermine this power and to create a constant climate of internal tension is the goal of anyone who is against a unified Arab nationalistic movement in the Arab Homeland.
How we can explain other than in this way the several accusations of Iranian intromission in Lebanon, even asking for the expulsion of its Ambassador and to paralyze all the flights to and from Iran due the support of the Iranian government to Hezbollah, but not a single word has been uttered against the external intromission of the U.S. in Iraq, not a word against the allowance of a third of Qatari land surrendered in order to house a U.S. base, not a word against external forces, armed to the teeth under the false pretext of "safeguarding democracy," ignoring the respect of Lebanese territoriality and considering as "terrorists" a large number of its population? France, the "motherland" keeps an important military presence in the area, focused mainly upon imposing the achievement of the recuperation of the colonialist project and once again doing the dirty work of an entity that has been oppressing an entire people for more than 60 years.
A ministerial meeting will take place in Cairo, convened by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for what reason other than to condemn once again the right of people to resist the oppressor, as Hezbollah is doing successfully in Lebanon? Certainly these ministers will discuss ways to stop the "negative" influence that the supporters of resistance have inside the country.
Finally, it should be noted that Palestine is at the core of the conflict in Lebanon. The termination of resistance has never been devoted to "building" and safeguarding Lebanon, but to protecting Israel and making it a "normal" state in the Arab Homeland. But the first decision of the agents, if they succeed, will be the resettlement of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon to anywhere else but Palestine.
* Nadia Hasan is a Palestinian activist who was born in Chile and who lives between various nations of South America and the Middle East. Her site is Palestina Resiste! and she dreams of the day when all Palestinians can exercise their Right of Return.
The Ball of Violence in Lebanon Is Growing
The last four days uncovered the reality of the balance of power in Lebanon, for when the pro-government leaders, such as Saad Al-Hariri and Walid Jumblat find themselves under siege, and cannot leave their headquarters, and ask for the army's protection, this means that there is one power in the country, which has the strength to impose its will.
We don't think that those leaders are not aware of this fact, and the minutest details of the military power on the ground, which obliges us to ask what made them to suddenly resort to escalation, and take decisions that they can't implement or enforce, such as the firing of General Walid Shukeir the commander of the Beirut airport security, and the removal of Hezbollah's telecommunications net and cameras as they consider them illegal.
The answer to this question and its ramifications, could be reduced to two subjects, it is either the pro-government group are too naïve, which we don't believe they are, or some external powers asked them to escalate, and provoke Hezbollah to pull their legs to indulge them in an internal civil war of attrition, which we consider more likely. There is unanimity among the Arab "moderate" alliance for the necessity of the liquidation of Lebanese resistance and its arsenal in Lebanon. The U.S. and the Israelis go hand in hand with this aim; it is not unlikely that they asked their Lebanese allies, as they are supposed to form the constitutional legitimacy, and provoke Hezbollah to force it to use its military power in internal affairs, so as to be able to say that this arsenal is not for use against Israel and to liberate occupied Lebanese territories, but to control Lebanon by the force of arms in Lebanon and turn upside the constitutional equivalence.
They want to internationalize Lebanon, and find the excuse for the United States, Israel, France and possibly some Arab "moderate" states to interfere militarily and send armed forces, under the pretence of saving the legitimate government headed by Fouad Saniora, the American naval fleet is still stationed just outside the Lebanese territorial waters, awaiting for the opportunity for immediate interference. But if this interference is attempted shall be too costly. [Breaking news: The U.S. Fleets is reported to move towards the Lebanese shores -- the translator].
America and Israel cannot declare war on the Lebanese resistance without a legitimate justification. The American Administration cannot again resort to lies after losing its credibility. The Lebanese front with occupied Palestine is quiet and the international interim forces are performing their duty in observing the boundary in the best possible manner, and no trespassing on the part of the resistance was reported. On the contrary, many trespassing incidents were registered against Israel such as the violation of the Lebanese skies.
The meeting of the Arab ministers of foreign affairs meeting by invitation of Saudi Arabia and Egypt the leading "moderate" Arab states founded by Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, is nothing but the first step on the way of the internationalization of the Lebanese crisis, and providing the legal cover for American/Zionist interference, as a first step for igniting a regional war to draw Iran and Syria into it.
As when an Egyptian official speaker on behalf of the Government announces, that his country cannot allow a force supported by Iran to take control of the government in Lebanon, this means that a war is declared against the Lebanese resistance, and a sign of interfering against it. Why didn't this same speaker make such an announcement when the U.S. not only interfered but waged war and occupied Iraq, and to condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the atrocities committed against the Palestinian people? And how does it allow the strangling siege on Gaza, stop fuel supplies to it, not to speak about supplying Israel with natural gas at reduced prices.
It ought be admitted, and without going too deep into theorization, there are two major projects for the Arab region, the first is to adopt the choice of resistance by Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian resistance factions, and the second choice is taking a stance with the American camp and its project of domination, strengthening and enforcing of Israeli military supremacy, that is programmed to include the axis of Arab "moderates." The choice of resistance, which is firmly supported by the Arab people, sabotaged this Zio-American camp and practically proved its failure. Arab supporters of the American camp completely failed to dismantle one single "illegal" Zionist colony, or remove one check point out of the about 750 in the West Bank, in spite of the free-of-charge services they extended to the American invasion of Iraq, meaning to join the American war against terrorism, or to hit the Islamic groups or put them under siege. Yes Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Hamas too, and if Iran took control over the first and found a foothold in Palestine through the second, this is due to the feebleness of the official Arab regimes, their connivance with the American project and their lack of a real project to regain Arab dignity and support of Arab causes. There is an Iranian project, another Turkish, a third Indian, a fourth Chinese but not an Arab one, whatsoever.
The struggle in Lebanon is not Sunni-Shiite as the "moderate" camp and its propaganda machine wants to picture it. It is a struggle between a resistance project, and another of surrender, in between the American war camp against this nation, and those who stand in the opposite camp. It is a struggle between those who defeated Israel and humiliated it, and those who were defeated in their confrontations with it. Palestinians who are mostly Sunnis, don't harbor enmity towards Shiites and Hezbollah in Lebanon. On the contrary they support them, with the exception of some fundamentalists, which applies to the majority of the Arab people from its far western end and its furthest most eastern end that is in between Morocco on the shores of the Atlantic, and Yemen on the shores of the Indian Ocean. So the extensive trials to demonize Shiites and Hezbollah for American aims are destined to failure exactly as was the case with the "devilish" left in the past.
The present U.S. Administration tries to spread the internal sectarian viruses, copy the Iraqi example to the various parts of the region and make use of its allied regimes as an information and religious cover for its attempts. America allied itself with some Shiites in Iraq against Sunnis, and with the Sunnis in Lebanon against the Shiites. America is against any party that resorts to resistance to its and Zionist aggression.
The American criterion to classify its enemies and allies is Israel, and their stance in relation to its projects in the region. Whoever resists Israel and declares resistance as a choice in Iraq, is definitely classified as a mortal enemy, which should be punished and isolated to whatever sect and religion he belongs to. Whoever is ready to "normalize" with Israel and keep silent about its massacres and supports the American occupation of Iraq is an ally and friend who deserves its support and assistance.
Lebanese neutrality is a lie that only those who utter believe. Lebanon cannot be neutral in an explosive region while its security, wealth and ideology are targeted. How could it be neutral under a sectarian complex that has regional and international extensions, and mostly corrupt and hireling political leadership, which are stationed in between main conflicting powers, one of which was implanted by force in the middle of major conflicting powers in the region that cannot live in their midst except by aggression (Israel). The second, that is classified among the historical, geographical strategic powers, is Syria, the lands of which are still occupied. The short periods of stability that Lebanon passed through were nothing but periods of artificial armistice most of which were before the establishment of the Zionist entity. Even the last ten years that experienced short stability periods were a result of Syrian-Saudi agreements with American blessing, and the non-objection of Israel. Now the Syrian-Saudi concurrence collapsed and turned into open enmity, and the American blessing evaporated, but Israel is getting ready for war with the hope of rescuing the smashed awe of its armed forces in July 2006. This explains the reason for the present escalation conditions. We don't believe that there is an imminent way out of the present crisis. The present idea of violence is continuously gaining weight, because America and Israel want the continuity of the security disturbances, so as to pull the legs of Iran and Syria into a regional war, in one way or another, and all the Lebanese are the victims of this devilish plan.
Repeating the words of "return to dialogue" and calls on the wise to "save the country" from a damaging war is like grinding water. Lebanon is just a reflection of regional balances and an arena for an Arab and international struggle. Thus the internal agreement would not be achieved except in the shade of an external agreement, which is not presently prevailing.
With great regret we say, Lebanon's free decision has never been there at any time, and the solemnity of its system has always been relative. Thus the future is dim, not to say jet black.
* Abdul Bari Atwan is editor of Al-Quds Al-Araby London (translated by Adib S. Kawar).
Myanmar
In the Shadow of Catastrophe
TML is posting
below Part Three of "In the Shadow of Catastrophe." For previous
installments, visit www.german-foreign-policy.com.
III
Under the pretext that Myanmar has refused to accept the conditions for deliveries of relief supplies set out by Western nations, Berlin is using the natural disaster in that country for a new attack on international law. Several German ministers have declared that a "humanitarian intervention" may well be carried out, even in violation of Myanmarian sovereignty. Troops could also be deployed, says a leading German international jurist. Natural catastrophes are supposed to justify military operations anywhere in the world. French and U.S. warships are already underway to this former European colony. Berlin is again using a humanitarian pretext to strengthen the German position in this geostrategically important country. Myanmar is of importance to its Asian neighbors because of its coastline. It provides China access to the Indian Ocean. Transit through Myanmar should facilitate trade with Europe and the Middle East, including also Chinese importation of raw materials. Already last year an intervention against Myanmar was being discussed in EU circles.
Unlimited Access
The Myanmar government's refusal to give in to Western demands to receive relief supplies is behind Berlin's recent statements about an alleged justification for "humanitarian interventions" in cases of natural disasters. The government is continuing to refuse unconditional access to its country. Among the disputed issues is Western relief workers' access to the disaster zones. Whereas Myanmar insists that the deliveries be made by local personnel, Berlin is insisting on having unlimited access for Germans. Also at issue is the labeling on the relief supplies. Officials in the disaster areas are re-labeling the goods to neutralize their origins, because they suspect donor nations of propaganda motives. Southeast Asian nations, among them Thailand, are accepting this neutralization. Berlin fears a reinforcement of the military government in Naypyidaw and is laying down conditions.
Military in Action
This is how the German government joins the French/U.S. offensive. Paris is demanding that the UN Security Council take up the issue of the Myanmar situation and force the government to grant Western personnel access to its territory. French Foreign Minister Kouchner declared that "the decision to take action was taken," independently "without waiting any longer." Kouchner announced that therefore a French warship with relief supplies was on its way to the former European colony, that the supplies "would be distributed directly to those affected, either by the ship's crew" -- French military personnel -- "or by French relief organizations."[1] Similar declarations were made in Washington that has also dispatched a warship to the area. If these threats are carried out, this would mean not only a breach of Myanmarian sovereignty, but an unauthorized deployment of Western military personnel on Myanmarian soil could provoke an armed reaction from the Myanmarian armed forces -- a worst-case scenario for the populations in the disaster areas.
Broad Interpretation
Berlin approves of the French government's provocative approach, as is apparent from declarations by various ministers. "I explicitly support the French Foreign Minister's initiative," to "apply pressure to the government in Myanmar," declared the Minister of Development, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul (SPD). The German Defense Minister, Franz-Josef Jung, CDU, affirmed that "if necessary, (...) a UN resolution has to be contemplated."[1] In the opinion of the prominent German jurist, Jochen Frowein, of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, in Heidelberg, a western intervention in Myanmar could be covered by Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which allows for measures "necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." International law has "evolved further" over the past decade, claims Frowein. Therefore the concept of "threat to the peace" is today more broadly interpreted and could even include "deadly catastrophes."[2] In this manner, the list of pretexts for military interventions could be extended at random.
Wars, Crises
If Berlin and Paris are successful in imposing their interpretation, the threshold erected by international law against military interventions will have reached a new low point. States struck by natural disasters will be forced to unconditionally cooperate with Western powers in order to avoid the threat of invasion by European or U.S. American troops. The spreading eradication of protective measures for weaker states -- such as military governments as in Myanmar -- has nothing to do with a humanizing of global living conditions. This can be seen in the growing criticism of the German government by human rights organizations. Germany, in this case, is playing itself up as the global proponent of humanitarian concerns. If it were really about saving human life, for years the outer borders of the European Union would have offered ample occasion. Already in 2005, because of the massive number of migrant deaths on these borders, the UN High Commission of Refugees classified them "a greater humanitarian crisis."[3] The same applies to the wars waged by the West in Afghanistan or Iraq, with direct or indirect German participation.[4] Given Berlin's probable implication in cases of kidnapping and torture of suspects, whose elucidation the government is still thwarting, European parliamentarians are warning against inner-European conditions sliding "into barbarism."[5]
Interests
Myanmar is indeed the focus of geo-strategic interests. Geographically the country is very important to China, enabling Beijing to open an overland trade route to the West, thereby reducing its dependence on the risky transport through the Malacca Straits (between Indonesia and Malaysia). But the Malacca Straits are not only being threatened by piracy. Berlin and Brussels have, for years, also been active in their focus on increasing German-European military influence over this pivotal Chinese maritime trade route. (german-foreign-policy.com reported [6]) Therefore Beijing has been negotiating for years with Myanmar concerning the elaboration of transport links including oil and natural gas pipelines. Currently more than two thirds of China's oil imports transit through the Malacca Straits. Last year, as the German EU Council Presidency intensified military cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), EU circles were already discussing possible operations against Myanmar -- at the time, without any concrete pretext (german-foreign-policy.com reported [7]). Declarations concerning the political upheavals in the southeastern part of the country last year clearly point to German-European interest in seeing a pro-western government in Naypyidaw.[8]
State Coordination
An indication of the direct exploitation for purposes of foreign policy of humanitarian relief organizations, who are supposed to obtain direct access to the Myanmarian disaster areas, is given by the so-called Humanitarian Aid Coordinating Committee that was convened last Friday, as usual at the invitation of the Foreign Ministry.[9] The committee, which, according to the Foreign Ministry, is "the central instrument for coordinating the Foreign Ministry's humanitarian aid with its civil society partners" and as such is "unique in Europe,"[10] discussed German relief deliveries to the Myanmarian disaster zones. The committee includes not only representatives of the NGO's committed to these problems but also representatives of all of the ministries concerned, including the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Development and the Defense Ministry. The ministries decide on the allocation of state funds to these relief organizations whose "independence" is without material basis.
Politically Take Advantage
According to prominent German news magazines, the massive state solicitation for humanitarian engagement in Myanmar is a smokescreen for political intentions. Spiegel-Online, for example, writes that "the Bush government" is attempting "to politically take advantage of the drama" while posing "as an unbureaucratic donor in the crisis."[11] The Myanmarian regime is afraid, "that in reality, a strategy for regime change is hidden behind the relief deliveries." This is "somewhat hampering relief deliveries." But similar criticism of German foreign policy is not to be found. Obviously this is taboo.
Notes
1. "Bundesregierung:
Internationale
Hilfe für
Burma erzwingen," www.faz.net 10.05.2008
2. "Völkerrechtler: Junta
könnte zum Einlass
von Helfern gezwungen werden;" Der Standard
3. see also "Größere
humanitäre Krise" and
our "EXTRA-Dossier Festung Europa"
4. see also "Paramilitary, Söldner
and Gulf State
Military Partner"
5. see also "Sinking into Barbarism and
Sinking Into
Barbarism (II)"
6. see also "War Options, Subregional
Arms Race and
Expeditionary Navy"
7. see also "Subregional Arms Race"
8. see also "Prestigious and Mit langem
Atemv
9. "Bundesminister Steinmeier leitet
Sondersitzung des
Koordinierungsausschusses Humanitäre Hilfe zur Lage in Myanmar;"
Pressemitteilung des Auswärtigen Amts 08.05.2008
10. "Der Koordinierungssausschuss;"
www.auswaertiges-amt.de
11. "Bushs versteckte Burma-Agenda;" Spiegel
Online
09.05.2008 09.05.2008
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca