Comments on a SAAG article on supposedly US-Myanmar relationship
My attention has been drawn to an article: UNITED STATES: DRAMATIC POLITICAL REACH-OUT TO MYANMAR, A STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE, published in a website for the South Asian Strategy Group by one of its analysts Subhash Kapila (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers35%5Cpaper3470.html). The group claims to be a non-profit and non-commercial think tank, with a declared objective to advance strategic analysis and contribute to the expansion of knowledge of Indian and International security and promote public understanding. It does not mention who pays for the group. However, a close look at its many publications make it amply clear that it is possibly a front for the RAW, working towards Indo-centric strategies to influence the decision makers, strategic planners, academics and the media in South Asia and the world at large. As such, anything published from the SAAG ought to be taken with much caution.
Idealism has never been important to India and many such hegemonic powers of our time. They were always willing to sacrifice such at the altar of self-interest. Thus, it was not unnatural for India to tie her knots with the SPDC regime, and other previous military dictators of Burma. In recent years, since 9/11, she has also tied her dirty hands with Israel and the USA to stop Chinese influence in the region. Yes, China has relationship with Burma - where there are more similarities than oddities for China. China also has strong relationship with Sri Lanka, where she is building a huge naval base. China has also been a trusted (a term which is increasingly becoming obsolete these days of geo-political self-interest) friend of Pakistan, which sees herself cornered by Indo-Israeli sphere of influence in Afghanistan. But then there are still some 'neutral' countries in the region - like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, where if the USA were to be serious about containing Chinese influence she would have a much better case to make that strategic inroad. (The USA, much in contrast to Kapila's theory, need not reach out to Myanmar if it is serious about an eastward strategic imperative!)
But as we have seen in the last few decades, the US interest has revolved around its own national security which is dependent on uninterrupted flow of oil to not only the USA but also its major allies - the European (more specifically the NATO) countries, and to some extent Japan. However, since the turn-around from Indo-China in the 1970s, the USA has not paid due attention to the eastward flow of oil through the Malacca Channel, concentrating more on the westward flow of oil from the Middle East. It is highly unlikely that under the Obama Administration we shall see a change in that strategy.
Oil or energy has decisively become very important for the survival of all developed and developing nations. China, for her own self-interest, wants to ensure the easiest and cheapest route for that inflow of oil. Shipment by sea is always much cheaper than over land. That is why China is more concerned about any shipment that would guarantee a cheaper flow of oil to her territories. The Sino-Myanmar relationship is built on that simple equation, and so do many other similar relationships in Africa, where China, followed by India, is buying millions of hectares of land, exploring oil and gas, and developing infrastructure to penetrate those markets.
Nor should we forget that the two major wars of this century owe themselves to oil. Had the Taliban government agreed to the the interest of the US oil companies in the closing days of Clinton and early days of Bush Jr., we may never have witnessed Afghanistan being attacked by the USA, whether or not 9/11 ever took place.
Kapila's analysis is a flawed one. Nowhere in his article did I get a hint of anything remotely stating that the USA had reached out to Myanmar. (If I am mistaken I would like to be corrected.) Many such analysts are basically working for the RAW to make a case for India, aiming to broaden India's hegemonic sphere of influence. Obviously, they know that as a poor country with much trouble spewing in the northeast corner, India on her own can't do it alone, she needs a big brother like the USA watching her back, so that in case of any tug of war with China, she could lean onto that brother. Kapila therefore conveniently ignores or leaves aside other better alternatives for the US strategy, and instead tries to pull her to tying her knots with the hated Myanmar regime.
The kowtowing of the so-called democratic Indian government with the brutal SPDC military oligarch has been nothing but a shameful and criminal display of self-interest that has resulted in prolonging the lifeline of the hated regime. India has no excuse for her despicable role in strengthening Myanmar. The hegemonic powers like that should not be trusted by anyone craving for human rights and fair play.
Idealism has never been important to India and many such hegemonic powers of our time. They were always willing to sacrifice such at the altar of self-interest. Thus, it was not unnatural for India to tie her knots with the SPDC regime, and other previous military dictators of Burma. In recent years, since 9/11, she has also tied her dirty hands with Israel and the USA to stop Chinese influence in the region. Yes, China has relationship with Burma - where there are more similarities than oddities for China. China also has strong relationship with Sri Lanka, where she is building a huge naval base. China has also been a trusted (a term which is increasingly becoming obsolete these days of geo-political self-interest) friend of Pakistan, which sees herself cornered by Indo-Israeli sphere of influence in Afghanistan. But then there are still some 'neutral' countries in the region - like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, where if the USA were to be serious about containing Chinese influence she would have a much better case to make that strategic inroad. (The USA, much in contrast to Kapila's theory, need not reach out to Myanmar if it is serious about an eastward strategic imperative!)
But as we have seen in the last few decades, the US interest has revolved around its own national security which is dependent on uninterrupted flow of oil to not only the USA but also its major allies - the European (more specifically the NATO) countries, and to some extent Japan. However, since the turn-around from Indo-China in the 1970s, the USA has not paid due attention to the eastward flow of oil through the Malacca Channel, concentrating more on the westward flow of oil from the Middle East. It is highly unlikely that under the Obama Administration we shall see a change in that strategy.
Oil or energy has decisively become very important for the survival of all developed and developing nations. China, for her own self-interest, wants to ensure the easiest and cheapest route for that inflow of oil. Shipment by sea is always much cheaper than over land. That is why China is more concerned about any shipment that would guarantee a cheaper flow of oil to her territories. The Sino-Myanmar relationship is built on that simple equation, and so do many other similar relationships in Africa, where China, followed by India, is buying millions of hectares of land, exploring oil and gas, and developing infrastructure to penetrate those markets.
Nor should we forget that the two major wars of this century owe themselves to oil. Had the Taliban government agreed to the the interest of the US oil companies in the closing days of Clinton and early days of Bush Jr., we may never have witnessed Afghanistan being attacked by the USA, whether or not 9/11 ever took place.
Kapila's analysis is a flawed one. Nowhere in his article did I get a hint of anything remotely stating that the USA had reached out to Myanmar. (If I am mistaken I would like to be corrected.) Many such analysts are basically working for the RAW to make a case for India, aiming to broaden India's hegemonic sphere of influence. Obviously, they know that as a poor country with much trouble spewing in the northeast corner, India on her own can't do it alone, she needs a big brother like the USA watching her back, so that in case of any tug of war with China, she could lean onto that brother. Kapila therefore conveniently ignores or leaves aside other better alternatives for the US strategy, and instead tries to pull her to tying her knots with the hated Myanmar regime.
The kowtowing of the so-called democratic Indian government with the brutal SPDC military oligarch has been nothing but a shameful and criminal display of self-interest that has resulted in prolonging the lifeline of the hated regime. India has no excuse for her despicable role in strengthening Myanmar. The hegemonic powers like that should not be trusted by anyone craving for human rights and fair play.
Comments
Post a Comment