A trojan in ASEAN ?

_ By Cedric Snodgrass  

Why the people of Burma don’t matter to the Government of the  “People’s Republic of China” [the PRC]:

First, a few rough figures.
Burma’s population is 47 million. China has a domestic market of 1,325 million people.
China exports annually goods worth about one billion [10¹²] dollars of which nearly two thousand million [2 x 10⁹] dollars-worth go to Burma, doubtlessly much of it for the realisation of the grandiose plans of the the military regime who, with their hangers-on, control most of the spending-power.
Burma annually exports some 300 million dollars-worth of mostly raw materials to China, according to official figures, but the true figure could be about double this.

For China, Burma is a source of cheap raw materials.
Cheap, because the PRC gives diplomatic backing to the regime, which despite its pretensions runs the opposite of a free market.
Cheap, because Burma is on the doorstep.
Cheap, because in the shattered Burmese economy labour is dirt cheap.

The Burmese military regime claims to be defending the country’s territorial integrity (a claim which is historically and legally false).
In fact the generals are ransoming the country to China, for their personal self-interest.

Burma is, and will be increasingly, a conduit for two-way trade between, on the one hand, China and on the other hand India, the Middle East and Africa. An example is oil—to be shipped from overseas and then pumped overland through Burma to China.
This is a much shorter, and supposedly safer, route than through the Malacca Straits.
Supposedly safer, for no-one can foretell what the future may hold.
The PRC wishes to believe—or at least wishes others to believe—that the military regime offers the greatest prospect for stability in Burma.
However, dictatorships devoid of all popular support are inherently unstable.
And, as the US has discovered in Iraq, oil pipelines, pumping stations, etc can be sabotaged, even from some distance away.

These days, economic pressure, rather than military conquest, is the way that one country dominates another.
A response to this has been the formation of economic blocs of many smaller countries.
They are able to strengthen their economies by forming a common market and can deal on a basis of greater equality with powerful nations that might otherwise dominate each country individually. They surrender a degree of sovereignty to a Union of Nations, where there are certain affinities despite antagonistic pasts, in order the better to resist economic domination by outsiders and to have greater control over their joint destiny. The European Union is an example.

For historical and for geographical reasons, China likely sees South-East Asia as lying within its natural sphere of dominance. If China sees S.E. Asia as its own backyard, this would reinforce a self-interest common to all nations, giving it a strong desire to displace the influence of others such as the US, the EU, and the growing economic power of India.

The PRC would also not wish to see South-East Asia become a major world power in its own right.
ASEAN, which includes the world’s third most populous country, Indonesia, has the potential to do this—if it can learn to manage its cultural, political and religious diversity.

A state or a supra-national state (such as the EU) cannot isolate money-matters from more fundamental issues such as individual rights and social obligations, which are inherent to every society which functions correctly.
To do otherwise is to introduce the law of the jungle.
This is the law the Burmese military regime has introduced to Burma.

The Burmese military regime’s presence in ASEAN can only weaken rather than strengthen the regional grouping, preventing it from developing to become a true player on the world stage.
Why ?
—Because this self-appointed government has consideration for neither human rights nor social consequences—they simply don’t exist for them.
And the regime is deceitful in a way that makes the average politician seem a paragon of honesty.

The members of this regime observe no laws, not even their own.
This applies equally to the commercial sector as to every other aspect of life.
So how can such rulers be expected to conform to the regulations of the supra-national community that ASEAN aspires to become ?

The PRC may well be pleased with this situation.

Also, human rights violations in neighbouring countries to some extent shield the PRC from a closer examination of what goes on within China’s own borders.
It is a question of  “worst things first”.

In no ASEAN country other than Burma are human rights non-existent.

The removal from power—by whatever means are necessary—of the Burmese military regime will have incalculable benefits not only for the people of Burma, but for the people of ASEAN.
It will give a tremendous fillip to the development of regional co-operation.
It will also bring ASEAN closer to India, counterbalancing the growing weight of China.