Suu Kyi of Burma: Khaleesi Gives Them All The Finger

Suu Kyi’s performance yesterday in her first address to the international community in the wake of her government’s recent ethnic cleansing in Rakhine was nothing less than breathtaking.

A more dignified “fuck you” has likely never been delivered to so many by someone so small.

Not only did she not admit to any sin of omission on her part for not speaking out against the flagrant human rights abuses being committed by soldiers and local people (very likely as she spoke), but neither did she offer any criticism of any aspect of the way the military has conducted itself.

On the contrary, she had nothing but praise for the way her government has improved things in Myanmar.

She managed to find a way to use a 50% decrease in AIDS deaths (a figure reported last year related to the period 2010-2016 and therefore having nothing to do with her administration) as a metaphorical illustration of how ignoring specific problems– like hundreds of thousands of her people fleeing rape, arson and murder– while attending to general improvements in social programs like health care and education is a more efficient and rational approach to such problems as ethnic cleansing.

Like I said, breathtaking.

She doubled down on every bit of political doublespeak she has resorted to since crowning herself Khaleesi to avoid saying directly that she either supports the ethnic cleansing of “Muslims residing in Rakhine” or is utterly indifferent to the suffering being visited daily on hundreds of thousands of Rohingya:

  1. Rakhine Muslims are not the only ethnic minority in the state whose needs the government must attend to.
  2. Terrorism must be dealt with.
  3. Everyone has problems. Everybody hurts. We should all care about the pain and suffering of all, not just those “Muslims residing in Rakhine”.
  4. There is false news out there and we need evidence. Foreign journalists must be wary of spreading misinformation.

And on and on. The bottom line: “I have heard your criticisms and I reject them.”

In a number of instances, Suu Kyi simply lied.

She claimed there had been no clearances or fighting since September 5th. Journalists taken on a tour of the area after that date reported fresh fires and the sounds of guns near to where they were.

She claimed that all ethnicities had equal access to health care and education in Rakhine. The Rohingya are denied not only access to health care and education but many are living in what some have described as concentration camps, and have limited travel rights even when living “off the reservation”.

Somewhere in that grand flatfooted rhetorical gesture that she performed in front of a global audience yesterday, she made a claim about rule of law and equality before the law that would have been hilarious if it weren’t for the mountain of corpses and charred remains of villages smoldering in the wake of soldiers and citizens whose impunity has been established and reiterated many times over the past 5 years and which is essentially an element of Myanmar culture at this point.

It will be interesting to see how this firmly delivered “giving of the finger” to the media and the NGOs that created “The Lady” Daw Aung San Suu Kyi “Democracy Icon” is spun by her international enablers, given the audacity of her performance.

Repressive laws that discourage free speech in Myanmar plus a tendency on the part of journalists in SE Asia to temper their own speech in order to retain access and keep their jobs may have the predictable effect of softening Suu Kyi’s blunt rejection of liberal internationalism in the eyes of the international audience. We will have to see.

One problem, of course, is that as long as a country like Thailand continues to present an easy target like a “Junta” for SE Asia pundits to take aim at, it won’t matter how many Rohingya die or how many lives are devastated, the simple fact of Myanmar having held an election to put Khaleesi on her throne will be used as a handy screen for all the investment pouring into what has been called Asia’s “last frontier”.

“Democracy”, as Suu Kyi and the generals well know, works as well as Dragons when it comes to legitimizing and sanitizing all sorts of things that liberals might otherwise find beyond the pale.

ASSK

Advertisements

Yanki, Go Home and Just Stay There… Please?

Whatever else an American may or may not be, an American is an American first and foremost: socialist, Nazi, Radiohead or Beyonce fan, liberal or paleoconservative, each and every one is an American.

What this means for people outside America is that there is no effective internal or domestic resistance to American cultural imperialism, to American economic imperialism or, and most obviously, to American militarist imperialism (which is arguably little more than a wing of the economic variety but kills a lot faster).

Americans go to work and pay their taxes,  and no matter what sort of personal “branding” they engage in on social media, in the pages of mid-to-main-stream media or simply over a glass of merlot with like-minded friends, they support the national project. Dead bodies lined up after an airstrike in Iraq or farmers lives and livelihoods destroyed by Monsanto in India and beyond are not brought back to life by sarky Tweets about what an evil clown Trump is or whether a presidential candidate believes America is in decline or is doing just fine as the globally indispensable nation.

It should probably go without saying that white people in America are all racists, but you do hear it a lot these days. “Is that a pistol in your pocket or just a Swiss Army folding swastika dildo you intend to pleasure me with?” is no longer just a question du jour on Tinder.   It’s everywhere, and because a white racist (is there any other kind?) is by default a white supremacist which is nothing more than a convenient way of avoiding saying fascist or Nazi, white people are all Nazis.

By default that is.

But there are ways a white American can wriggle out from under the fascist label: by wearing a Chavista t-shirt unironically or calling other white people racist on Twitter or by liking everything Beyonce does and never mentioning black-on-black crime.

In reality, the number of ways Americans can shop and preen on social media to deny their default Hitler-clonism is literally limitless. What we would all  just love to see of course will almost surely never happen: hundreds of thousands of video clips of white Americans proclaiming their racial/genetic guilt and then punching themselves in the face until they bleed profusely then faint, or applying booster cables to their own genitals and really really screaming their heads off, just like countless folks around the globe have done when their American-trained and -funded security forces have defended  CocaCola and Pizza Hut so that young Americans can continue to buy their Chinese-made iPhones in peace.

American socialists, to give them their due, are of course opposed to all this, and some are even aware of the joke involved in invoking international solidarity using a phone made by a worker making $6 a day while also calling for a fight for 15 on the same phone. Unlike many of their compatriots, some socialist Americans can actually find Myanmar on a map and are pretty certain the war in Vietnam was a “bad take”.

So while they will no doubt be out there bravely tearing down statues of racist slave-holding white assholes from 150+  years ago, not one of the whining bitches will have the nerve to go and smear shit all over the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. They are Americans after all and, you know, support the troops. Or excuse the troops. Or turn the troops into the good guys by invoking victim status for the troops. Some of them were, after all, black, so any suggestion that Vietnam was a racist imperialist war that the racist imperialists have yet to acknowledge or apologize for is just silly.

African-Americans are quite rightly up in arms about police abuse and systematic murder of black citizens in America, but they are also up in arms as members of the military whose primary purpose (besides deploying expensive weaponry so the American arms industry can keep on keeping on) is the calculated murder of people of colour outside the American homeland. The American ideology doesn’t really have a handy term to describe what is made manifest when a black American jarhead calls Arabs “camel-jockeys” and takes a few bucks from Uncle Sam for kicking in their doors and killing them since racists is what white people are. By default.

It’s painful to think that it might have been the black son or daughter of parents who marched in Selma that operated the drone that killed Anwar Awlaki,  or either his 16-year-old son or his 5-year-old daughter. Black soldiers helping a black president to normalize the extrajudicial execution of American citizens of whatever ethnic or racial heritage has just got to be a major victory for diversity and surely a harbinger of the day when white Americans will be able to stop bashing themselves in the name of equality because Americans of all colours and creeds are out there killing the shit out of people of color in really poor countries.

Here endeth the Rant.

Trump(ets) of Doom

February 3 2017

These two tweets are a perfect distillation of one of the many things ailing “the left” these days:

It’s possible that Murtaza isn’t old enough to know what the “decades of struggle” he is talking about were actually about. They were not about getting racist speech out of the public sphere. They were about voting rights and discrimination in housing and employment.

One of the side effects was to make public expression of racism impolite and extremely unattractive and uncool.

People like Murtaza apparently think it’s the side effects that matter. And that politics can be conducted as a class in deportment and etiquette, and so long as saying racist things is uncool, all is right with the world.

Question: What if they instituted a new Jim Crow and no one ever said the n-word?

Whataboutism: In Defense of Defensive Propaganda

whataboutism

Inevitably, as the horror stories, some possibly true, many probably not, emerge from the “liberation” of Aleppo, there are sporadic outbreaks of “whataboutism” on Twitter and other social media.

When someone points to reports of a hospital deliberately bombed in Aleppo as part of the Assad-Putin strategy to make life hell for civilians in the city, someone mentions the American bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan last year. (Notice it won’t be referred to as the Obama strategy.)

Almost immediately someone will say “two wrongs don’t make a right”, thus doing the almost miraculous merely by admitting that Americans destroying a civilian hospital is “wrong”. More often it will be pointed out that the Kunduz horror was a “mistake” and that American soldiers and officers have been “disciplined” for it, thus removing the stink of immorality from that particular war crime.

But more commonly the response is to point to the old Russian and fellow-traveler technique of “whataboutism”, which Wikipedia will inform you falls under the logical fallacy of “tu quoque” and which schoolchildren in the 50s and 60s referred to as “I know you are, what am I?”

And while it may be true that there is a logical fallacy at work if what one is suggesting is that the Russian bombing was not immoral or a war crime because the Americans have done the same, that is not the point at all. The point is something altogether different and more relevant than constructing a piece of spurious “logic”.

Consider this. You are at a small gathering at a friend’s house when you are approached by an acquaintance who points out someone you don’t know and whispers, “Disgusting. Why would ‘A’ invite her I wonder.”

When you ask what the problem is, your interlocutor continues in a low hiss, “She has a small hole just below the base of her spine. Fetid gasses occasionally seep out of it, and almost daily, sometimes more often, foul messes ooze out that require immediate treatment, treatment that actually costs the taxpayer massive amounts of money to avoid contamination of public space. She’s utterly, disgustingly filthy.”

If you don’t immediately recognize that your new friend is talking about the other person’s rectum and therefore that there is nothing especially disgusting or filthy about her in the least, you may feel revulsion and wonder why such a creature was invited to your friend’s house at all.

Focusing on some particular bit of information that suggests that someone or some nation is prone to immorality or criminality while simultaneously ignoring the context of a world in which the particular behavior is common or at least shared by others is one very salient element of propaganda.

Half a million civilians may have died in war-related incidents in Iraq since the American invasion in 2003. Three to four million Vietnamese, Lao and Khmer people died during the so-called Vietnam War, or more accurately, three to four million people were slaughtered by US military involvement in Southeast Asia in the 60s and early 70s.

Those are not “logical fallacies”. They are dead bodies: men, women, children. They were killed by Americans or as the result of American military adventurism. No one  since 1945 comes even close to the record of war crimes and international immorality that America has racked up.

And that is not a fallacy of any kind whatsoever. It is, however, a context. And it is in relation to that reality that our judgments of other governments and other militaries need to be made, never forgetting that when we want to accuse someone of war crimes or human rights abuses and actually get the “international community” to do something about it, we should begin with the biggest perpetrator and work our way down.

Otherwise it would just be another case of sweeping up the little guys and letting the ringleaders go free.

White Talking Heads: Media Punditry and the Case of Thailand

Television news, as everyone knows, is essentially idiotic.

It is idiotic partly because the simplification required to say anything meaningful about current events–Syria, say, or Putin or Trump or the recent coup in Brazil– in the time allotted by the format makes intelligent commentary or analysis utterly impossible.

So what television news deals in is better described as little snippets of ideology which act as “sentences”, if you will, to the morphemes of “soundbites”and “lexical” imagery: video clips of war-torn cities, pictures of dead children and weeping parents, maps with arrows showing advance and retreat.

A pre-existing frame of ideology is invoked and confirmed, a commercial is shown, and the viewer goes back to Orange is the New Black feeling edified and responsible.

One element in the standard western ideology of course is free speech. Democratic societies encourage freedom of thought and speech, and the media, especially television news, provides a platform for debate and discussion.

Quite often we get a panel or a pair of pundits, usually described as “experts” or former officials or journalists with extensive experience covering A, B or C, who perform “disagreements” that are also already inscribed in the basic ideology.

The standard “disagreement” of course is that of “right versus left” and everyone is familiar with how that plays out depending on the orientation of the network presenting the “disagreement”.

Big news items get the “pundit debate” presentation that provides a simulacrum of “free speech” and “freedom of thought and opinion” but the pundits are always or almost always “experts” at one important unspoken skill: their opinions and arguments are circumscribed by an acceptance of the fundamental elements of the western ideology.

This is why experts like Noam Chomsky rarely show up in mainstream media, and slightly less offensive but still outside the dominant paradigm pundits, like Glenn Greenwald who do, are often ridiculed or at least questioned more harshly than is normally the case.

With the election of Donald Trump, a phenomenon not yet successfully incorporated into the media’s ideological apparatus, there is a possibility that something will have to change and a space for real discussion may be opened up, in print and online media at least, but television will still have to find a way to fit the new “disagreements” into the time-limited formats that were more than capacious enough to handle the previous standard “disagreements” within the ideological frame.

This, however, is decidedly not the case with “smaller” news items: anything concerned with politics in a medium-sized Asian country like Thailand, for example.

In these cases, we get a pure, one-sided affirmation of the western ideology and nothing more. There is almost never a debate, although Al Jazeera may have once or twice had a token representative of something other than the dominant ideology on to be made to look foolish by the other “experts” on the panel.

This tends to be true of all of Southeast Asia as it is presented in the mainstream media. We learn that all of these societies are less democratic, more corrupt and plagued with more official violence than the gold standards upheld by the west.

The junta in Thailand, for example, is usually presented as both violent and unjust, using examples of torture claims and excessive sentences for ridiculously petty instances of violation of the lese majeste law. We are expected, of course, to understand these criticisms in the frame of the ideology of the west regardless of the rather glaring fact that Thailand is not and never has been a part of the west.

The effect of  “experts” placing the reality of a country like Thailand into the frame of pure ideology is to reinforce the essential rightness of that ideology.

It allows the pundit to present himself (for they are invariably male) as an advocate for better things for the people of Thailand  (better here meaning more inline with the ideological fantasy he weaves with his “critique”), and as such come across as an “oppositional” figure, thus creating the simulacrum of “disagreement” without actually presenting any other viewpoint.

In short, we are in the realm of neo-imperialism, with white male talking heads taking up “the White Man’s burden” and playing the role of “the best [we] breed”. (It might be relevant in this context to look at a work like Owen Jones “The Establishment” and see how many of the white male Thai “experts” attended either Oxford or Cambridge.)

A more interesting and enlightening approach to presenting the situation in Thailand might be to compare the reality of, say, US torture, imprisonment and corruption with the comparable realities in Thailand.

Rather than invoking the glories of “free speech” as an ideology and lamenting the capacity of Thai citizens to think freely due to the rigid controls on free expression in Thailand, it might be more informative to compare the Thai case with how corporate media and its funneling of all information through the ideological filter has influenced the capacity for Americans and American “talking heads” to think and speak freely.

But of course if anyone were to attempt to do so in the soundbite format and by attempting to step outside the ideologically correct syntax of allowable discussion, they would wind up like Chomsky, silenced by mainstream media.

It must be just so much more personally satisfying to follow Kipling’s advice to journalists covering these “sullen peoples, half devil and half child”:

By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit, And work another’s gain.

Of course, any attempt to measure how anyone other than the pundit himself “gains” from the simulacrum of “open speech and simple” will run up against the rather simple fact that no one does. No one, that is, among the people singled out for their usefulness in confirming the ideology that provides the context for their presentation to the world.

The Way We Are: Creating Our Own Realities I

Watching the Trump Show, aka the 2016 Presidential elections, has been a real eye-opener.

Apparently there is a problem with racism in the United States of America, and it is just recently coming out of the deep dark hole it has hidden itself in since the last time American racism was on display for all the world to see.

Now there are those who might think that the fact that American police officers kill black men at an alarming rate with impunity for just about any reason at all at just about any time is the face of American racism, but they would be wrong.

There are others who might think that the American record of mass slaughter of non-white people around the globe over the past half century is the face of American racism, but they too would be chuckled at for even suggesting such an absurdity.

No, ladies and gentlemen, the face of American racism is Donald Trump and his white working class supporters. Serious liberals, and even more serious conservatives, are throwing  the f-bomb around like someone had spiked the punch at the Pundits Ball. And the f-bomb I refer to is FASCISM.

Yes, folks, those overweight, badly dressed, gun-wielding, low-class white people with their religion and their shitty jobs are turning to fascism in their frustration with their loss of absolute control of the American dreamscape.

They want their America back. They want America to be great again. And they want someone to set things up so they don’t have to work two jobs, both requiring silly uniforms and obsequious sloganeering, to pay the rent on their crappy houses.

Fascists, or what?

Fortunately for the liberal hegemony we have all come to know and love, Trump is on course for a thrashing by Hillary Clinton, whose liberal credentials include the astounding fact of her gender. She is woman. Hear her speak to Wall Street. Then watch the millions stream into her bank accounts.

Women love Hillary of course because glass ceilings need to be shattered and Hillary is certainly the woman for the job.

Neoliberals love Hillary because, no matter how much bogus “leftward movement” has been forced on her by the traitorous Bernie, she is one of them. Wall Street will continue to run the American economy as it has done for decades, and when Hillary gets out of the White House in 8 years she will have more seats on boards than the Titanic had deckchairs.

Neocons love Hillary because she is a firm believer in America the Exceptional and Indispensable Nation and will gladly use whatever weapons are available to prove it. This is not to be confused with the neo-fascist desire to make America great again because neocons just want to pound the living shit out of some third world country because America is already great and it has a duty to do so.

Black people apparently love Hillary but I can’t for the life of me understand why. While Wall Street was reaping billions in profit from the mortgage fraud that decimated many black families, maybe Hillary was having buttons printed up somewhere about “rainbows” or “POC” or something similar. Maybe black Americans forget who torpedoed welfare and set the militarized police forces across the nation on the course they are on today.

And “liberals” love Hillary because she is a woman and because “liberals” will be on a real “liberal” streak when they deliver the one-two “liberal” punch of a black POTUS followed immediately by a woman POTUS. Because, after all, what else does “liberal” signify? Besides membership in or support for the Democratic Party.

Those of us in the reality-based community outside the American media wonderland, outside the Beltway, and outside Wall Street and the circle of those who really really admire Henry Kissinger, can only shake our heads in wonder.

And what about those crazy Thais, eh? Voting for an anti-democratic constitution? And those Filipinos? Electing a man who brags about extrajudicial executions! Wow. You’d almost think they were Thai!

Leaving the EU: Where Was The Left?

It’s a shame that Corbyn and the real left in the UK allowed the Brexit push to be dominated by the right, especially on the issue of immigration. There are many good arguments, solidly left wing arguments, for the UK getting out of the increasingly neoliberal undemocratic EU.

Here in SE Asia we are very aware of the massive American push to have Asian countries surrender the autonomy of their economies to the TPP. Although this secretive treaty is presented as a “free trade” deal it is in fact a legal method of locking Asian companies and governments into American-controlled IP law, among other regulatory cages.

One effect of Thailand joining the TPP would be to immediately put a significant number of HIV and Hep C drugs out of the financial reach of sufferers. The Thai government has been praised for standing up to the US and BigPharma and resisting attempts to insist on the “real” drugs and the “real” prices rather than the licensed generics allowed by law here.

In Europe of course it is the equally secretive, elite-driven TTIP that the EU is negotiating with the US. Any North American who considers themselves “liberal” or “left” and watched in horror as EU/Bundesbank austerity was used to strip the people of Greece of their democracy might want to consider that TTIP will make that series of attacks against Greek society look positively benign.

The bottom line here is that with the rise of the BRICs, white people in the global north have seen their dominance of world economic activity threatened by loss of control over the old mechanisms like the WTO. To get around this loss of control to uppity nations like China and Brazil, these two universalizing “trade deals” are being negotiated behind closed doors to lock in the neoliberal order as permanently as possible and ensure the continued economic hegemony of the US/EU, insofar as we consider those entities as little more than their transnational finance and corporate bodies.

So getting out of the EU has been presented by so-called “liberals” as nothing more than racism and xenophobia and imperial nostalgia. It would be ridiculous to deny that a portion of the leaders and the voters on the Leave side fall into that category, but to suggest that that is the whole story is to fall prey to the neoliberal “free market” propagandists who have successfully silenced much of the real argument through control of media and decades of having made anything but FREE TRADE FREE MARKETS FREEDOM sound like the swan song of the loony left.

People who agree with this should at least have the dignity to stop pretending that there is anything “left” about their politics and proudly wear the NeoLiberal Identitarian t-shirt next time they go to an anti-racist rally sponsored by the people who are helping to undermine Brazilian democracy as we speak.

Much is being made of the skew in votes according to age, with younger people massively supporting Remain. Anyone not familiar with how this is being spun hasn’t read this far anyway so I will just point out that the age groups that want to stay in the EU are made up of people who have never known anything other than Thatcherite neoliberalism and Blairite “third way” neoliberalism. Perhaps understandably such people no longer show up to vote in elections as evidenced by participation stats. I would suggest that this indifference to electoral politics is just that, indifference.

And people with little or no interest in politics tend to prefer to put their faith in elites that make their political decisions for them, hence the EU’s appeal. That and the opportunity to work abroad for a few years; how can democracy compete with that?